>Robbing a store is totally neutral!
What's the worst way you've ever seen someone break their alignment and try and pretend they didn't?
>Yes, I might be raping and then sacrificing these virgin, teenage girls to the gods of darkness, but this I must do in order to enact the ritual. And yes, the ritual is required for us to stop the BBEG, so clearly my actions are good.
>>46137641
If the BBEG will do something worse than
>sacrificing these virgin, teenage girls to the gods of darkness
then yes, he is good
The lawful good Paladin was up for sacrificing a neutral aligned mercenary that the party had defeated to the evil god Ghaunadaur. The bard was the only one against it, really. If the bard hadn't prevented it, he wouldn't have fallen.
>>46137623
>Robbing a store is totally neutral!
It is neutral.
>>46137930
Ruining someone's livelihood for personal gain isn't evil?
>>46137641
This depends a lot on the mindset of the character. Do they -really- believe they're doing it for the greater good? If yes, then it's not out of alignment. If they're trying to find excuses to do the action, it's bad.
>DM worked on a campaign all week before we all met up on the weekend
>starts us out saying we were all passing through some podunk village for our own purposes when a freak blizzard hit
>a generous innkeeper and his two daughters let us in
>as we gained control of our characters we were trying to keep warm as the last of the firewood burned away in the fireplace
>NEUTRAL GOOD bard immediately attempts to kill the two commoner women to use as firewood
>What? I'm working for the greater good!
>DM's face when
>>46137944
It's evil.Unless it is justified.It almost always isn't.
>>46137944
Most stores are insured and gain more from a robbery then they lose. Checkmate atheists.
>>46137944
Depends on context. Are you robbing the store of an honest clerk for your own personal gain and that's the end of it? Evil action.
Is the store owned by a rich asshole that torments the poor? Neutral, and arguably good depending on what you do with the money.
Are you robbing the store for money you need to save someone's life? Neutral
>>46137969
That doesn't even make sense.
Humans don't fucking burn. For fuck's sake, we're 70% water and a good chunk of the remainder is bone. There's a reason why funeral pyres generally involve four or five times as much wood as corpse.
>>46137839
>i am a good person because that other guy is worst
or
>the road to hell IS NOT paved with good intentions
>>46137969
>>NEUTRAL GOOD bard immediately attempts to kill the two commoner women to use as firewood
Commoner women don't even burn that well.
>>46137839
That's not how it works
You aren't good because you used evil acts to defeat someone else who is evil
You can only be good if you use good acts to defeat someone who is evil
Otherwise, you're neutral at best, but much more likely to fall under evil than neutral
>>46137623
>Constraining people to a crap 35 year old alignment system.
Why live?
>>46137969
That's retarded why wouldn't you use the innkeeper as firewood instead of the hot chicks? Sounds like a waste of perfectly good women to me.
>>46138060
>You can only be good if you use good acts to defeat someone who is evil
Also known as people that are too stubborn to succeed in life.
>>46137623
>Robbing a store is totally neutral!
Yeah, fuck that shit. That's Chaotic as fuck.
>>46137999
Is insurance fraud more or less evil than tax evasion?
Worst?
>The bear is wounded, bleeding out. A larger creature seems to have done this. The wounds seem salvageable though with your passed skill check, druid"
>Party druid "I kill it."
>Everyones kind of confused, expecting him to justify it
>"How much exp is that worth?"
To be fair, the guy is complete shit and spends 11 hours a day playing WoW
>>46138082
If being a good person was easy, everyone would do it
It's precisely because being good is hard that it's something worth praising
>>46138071
>He doesn't create characters by following the timecube system
>>46138060
And yet Gygax himself said a paladin is supposed to kill Good people so they don't have a chance to become Evil in the future.
>>46137623
I miss Yotsuba.
>>46138188
Gygax's skewed understanding of ethics and morality are pretty much entirely to blame for the alignment system being utterly incomprehensible
>>46138188
>Context has no meaning
He was referring to the naturally evil orcs, you schmuck, who were literally naturally Evil and HAVE to revert in past systems due to their connection with Gruumush.
>>46138131
A good druid would realize that bear has been wounded, and will likely be pretty angry about it. A bear isn't a person. They don't "forgive and forget". The druid could also have seen it from the point of view of "survival of the fittest, and this bear is not fit". Using magic to save its life would be doing the Circle of Life no favors.
Honestly, of all the irritation I get from players who pick "neutral" for an alignment (or even worse: "I'm True Neutral!") I don't get that irritation from druid PC's.
>>46138131
That pisses me off.
>>46138022
The DM would probably agree if he let it happen. Instead the shopkeeper revealed his personal weapon, a wand of magic missile, and chased the fucker out into the blizzard where he eventually died. He asked everyone if they wanted to start over from the beginning and the bard insisted it would be funnier to stick with what they had thus far.
>>46138152
>1 round per turn is deadly erroneous
Some day I'm gonna actually read that mad fuck's scribblings.
>players are all wounded, hosted in a monastery while they're recovering
>neutral good bard proceed to charm a male novice
>"I was just trying to free him, like a good guy would do"
He got kicked out and died from his wounds later.
>>46138283
That would have been fine, we were all waiting for the justification. However, after I told him "Your character has no concept of experience points", he goes "Well...I dont know, maybe eat it or somthing?".
Wasnt made he killed the bear, was mad that he was literally playing a wizard with a few more leaves, and was supposedly a "Good druid who wants to help nature and civlization co-exsist.". Which now that I think about it, was probably just copied from some wow fan-fic.
>>46138383
Did he escalate the situation?
Otherwise, DM went overboard pretty fast with that.
Why not give him a short description of the novice's discomfort, followed by the others' disdain for the bard's unseemly actions, and leave it at that?
>>46138354
It's not worth it. It is silly at first, but the more you read the more you realize how batshit the creator is. All entertainment value disappears quickly into a sense of disease and confusion at what point the idiot is even trying to get across. What I'm trying to say is that Time Cube is... Well, when people say it's crazy, they don't mean the fun kind of crazy, they mean the 'this guy obviously saw one too many shoggoths' kind of crazy. Obsessive, violent, and disturbing.
>>46138383
charm as in try to seduce or charm as in the spell
the former is actually pretty fine (though more in tune with a chaotic character), latter is a big no-no
>>46138426
When I say "charm", it's a nice way to say "had homo sex with him in the chapel". The novice got expelled for that, and we found him later.He became a bard too, and replaced the old one.
In that case, the guy was a fedora-tipping asshole who believed religion was enslavement or some crap like that.
>>46138241
>Blaming Gygax for being unable to reduce the ENTIRE FIELD OF ETHICS down to 5 words
I will grant you that he made it worse than it needed to be, but not by much. The real problem with the alignment system is that it's meant for stories where there's a clear line between good guys and bad guys, and that's just not the kind of fantasy fiction that people want these days.
>>46137623
It was the DM, actually.
>Trying to talk the fallen angel out of killing good people and using their souls to build an army to invade Hell is an evil act. Your Paladin falls.
>>46138488
if the monks were good and their religion didn't consider homosex to be evil I'd say letting the bard die of his wounds over that was to much
well if it was consensual homosex, if it was any form of coerced sex then yeh, justified
besides having religious people act like decent folk who just happen to believe in something more is the best way to piss off a fedora tipper
>>46137944
In most cases, it doesn't rise to the level of Evil. Sure it's selfish, but that's Neutral for you. It's probably a bit on the low end of Neutral, but well within its scope. Now if we're talking Law vs. Chaos, it probably does fall under the rubric of Chaotic, though obviously circumstances can vary. So if you had to pick a default alignment for nonviolent thieves, it'd likely be Chaotic Neutral.
>>46138541
I think I remember this story
>>46138541
This angel couldn't just... ask for volunteers?
I mean, they are an ANGEL, right?
>>46138545
Seems like he confused the monk enough to figure out he was in the closet. So at least there was a good end in there somewhere.
Still, fuck that bard in particular.
>>46138609
Maybe it's an Old Testament angel? These are kind of dicks.
>>46137944
If the motivation is "ruining someone's livelihood" then yes , it's evil. Wanting to get some cash and simply not giving a damn that it belong to someone else is neutral.
>>46138589
I've told it before.
>>46138609
I honestly don't think it would have occurred to him. He was kind of a psycho. Besides, why risk the chance that they'd say no?
>>46138661
Being egotistical is evil.
>>46138674
No, being ego-maniacal is evil. Being egotistic is just being very proud, it doesn't mean you're willing to hurt others to satiate your superiority complex.
>>46138674
No, it's neutral.
>>46137623
Well it's not evil, chaotic at best.
>>46138395
>"Well...I dont know, maybe eat it or somthing?"
Wait... did he mean eat it to make use of its body or eat it to get the experience points? Because if it's the latter, I'm gonna need a bigger hand to facepalm with.
>>46138817
Player says he wants to kill the bear for XP.
GM says the character doesn't know what XP is.
Player quickly look for an excuse.
>>46138817
He wanted the experience points. When I told him to justify a good druid of life killing an easily saved animal for some reason other then video game rules, he picked "I did it so I can eat it.". after wich he didnt want his bag to get bloody so he cut it up and left it.
It was hilarious when I tried to explain to him "Experienced in a class is earned from doing things related to the class, not just killing things". He sat there with a confused look and mouth open for a bit.
>>46138914
>Experienced in a class is earned from doing things related to the class, not just killing things
The more I read things like this, the more I regret not liking tabletop games.
>>>46137839 Ends justify the means.
Literally how Paladins fall.
>>46138006
Whoa there robin hood.
>>46138914
My group doesn't even bother with experience points, we just hand out levels whenever the party reaches a milestone in the PLOT.
>>46137999
In a medieval-ish setting?
>>46138914
>Experienced in a class is earned from doing things related to the class, not just killing things
Preach!
>>46138071
Because it helps creating consistent characters.
I triend to ignore alignment, but after loads of >my character would totally do it! I'm not doing it because I'm fucking powergamer!
>Nice, benevolent person that went to adventure to save his village, would totally kill innocent baby for better sword!
Really, that's now worth it. Maybe if you have group of totally dependable players...
>>46139157
That actually sounds interesting.
>>46139079
Honestly fixes a good amount of gamification (ment in the video game mindset way) that I've seen TTRPGs suffer from sometimes.
I once saw a new person ask how much HP something had left, justifying it that they should be able to see it's health bar. The DM flipped and threatened him with a sword.
>>46138914
Okay. That's not as bad as I thought. When I first read it, I was thinking he took you saying "your character doesn't know about experience points" to mean that his character wouldn't know how to collect them, and his response was to eat the bear to see if that got the points onto his character sheet. It would've been an almost beautiful combination of muddling IC and OOC perspectives, and just plain being stupid.
>>46139175
>they should be able to see it's health bar
What the fuck.
>>46138914
so how long did it take him to realize that properly roleplaying an encounter with said bear would have resulted in more experience than killing it?
The one Lawful Evil party member in an otherwise Good(ish) party was the only character who wanted to have mercy on opponents or try diplomacy instead of muderhoboing everyone. She was also the only one who wasn't okay with using the party's mule as monster bait.
>>46139175
>This time on "Who's More of an Autist?"
>I once saw a new person ask how much HP something had left, justifying it that they should be able to see it's health bar. The DM flipped and threatened him with a sword.
>dick shopkeeper rips off the party
>party comes back, finds the shop closed
>attempt to break in
>trigger traps, get hurt, get pissed
>take back their money and the stuff they were there to buy originally
>find secret entrance in the back
>break in
>shopkeeper attacks them with cone of cold
>party gangs up and kills dude
>all this in broad daylight in the middle of a city
>wonder why the law is now after them for breaking and entering and murder
>>46139231
>all this in broad daylight in the middle of a city
>party comes back, finds the shop closed
>in broad daylight
>finds the shop closed
>broad daylight
>shop closed
>daylight
>closed
>day
>close
>ay
>lose
>y
>lose
>
>se
>e
>>46139210
He never did. It was a game I was asked to run for a couple new players and and he went stright for the min-max forums. After haveing people flake out for 2 months (somtimes we would have 3 out of 5, somwtime 2 and one late, sometims all 5 would show up and have to go 10 min into session.), I just decided to call it. Thye keep saying they want to play again, but even when they GM (and they have no fucking clue whats going on, literally animeland games), it lasts maybe 4 sessions before people dont show up.
>>46138131
You know, there is such a thing as a mercy kill
>>46139231
>shop closed
>during the day
does he not like money, or did you attended it to happen like that?
>>46139299
read the thread a bit more, also read why he killed it. >>46138395
>>46139299
Yeah, but the druid didn't try to justify it like that. They just saw xp
>>46139278
middle of the day, shopkeeper on lunch break
shopkeeper performing an inventory check
shopkeeper is also creates his own products half of the day
shopkeeper only works in the morning
are you seriously implying there's literally no reason a shop can be closed during the day?
>>46139327
He likes money so much hes willing to cheat adventurers out of it.
>dick shopkeeper rips off the party
>>46139365
>all these things hired help can do
>or a apprentice
>or a peasant for literally food
Not saying your retarded but it broke my immersion.
>>46139388
Isn't it fucking obvious? He ripped off a bunch of armed men, so closed for the day to make sure they didn't do exactly what they did. He didn't know they had no survival instinct.
>>46137839
>t. Ammon Jerro
>>46138082
Whoa there! Better hurry, I hear the fedora store closes early on Sundays.
>>46137641
Only if there is clearly no other alternative at all. Doing vile shit should be the good character's last resort and bitter one at that.
The problem with a lot of players is that they get way to gung-ho in the "end's justifies the means" mindset without first considering other, less damaging, alternatives. It's generally more fun to fuck all kinds of shit up and claim righteousness so long as it pulls of a victory in the end. It's also a lot easier.
Less risky too, victory means you're a grim, utilitarian hero, failure means your a deep and complex villain. Ether way you feel cool.
Being genuinely good requires patience, cooperation and responsibility. It means you actually have to give a shit about something enough to protect it. It means that if you fail you have lost something you were invested in. Being a good guy means you have to put your ego aside in order to get something done. In a lot of ways it means you're a servant to mankind.
But I think with that investment come a far greater reward. You may not get to look as cool, but you get a real connection with your world and a chance for a truly weighty victory or failure.
Better to have loved and lost, ect...
>tl;dr
I wouldn't say the road to hell is paved with good intentions; it's paid with impatience and pride.
>>46138131
>"How much exp is that worth?"
None because you didn't defeat it in battle.
>>46139388
not every shopkeeper has an apprentice mate
and if its a shop ADVENTURERS go to its more than likely a specialized shop with a limited clientele and high quality, high prize products that sell only a few times within a single day
and given he was able to cast cone of cold we're like to assume this was a magical shop, probably with the shopkeeper producing a decent number of the items inside which in turn would make it highly irresponsible to put just a peasant in the shop.
>>46139440
Wouldn't a fedora store be open ESPECIALLY on Sunday, somehow? Just to insult Christianity more?
>>46139433
But Ammon Jerro was evil and was fully aware of just how evil he was. It was actually refreshing, he had no illusions about where exactly he was going to end up after all was done, his only regret was what happened to his (something) grand daughter which he can get emotional over but nowhere near enough for a redemption
>>46139278
Shopkeeper had actually gone back to his secret hideout to sort and stash the 10k worth of gems and coin the party gave him.
>>46137623
How about we just don't use alignments
Avoid issue entirely
>>46139513
but if we don't use alignments how do I make the paladin fall?
>>46139497
He did it for a good cause, but that happens when you bargain with every demon in all hells
>>46139513
Without alignments, the game turns into a murder hobo festival
>>46138661
If you think stealing isn't evil, you've never been robbed.
>>46139366
then it obvious the DM is a shit head.
>>46139471
They actually cater to a wide variety of terrible hat choices, it is only a simplification that people call it "the fedora store." Actual name is The Happenin' Haberdasher. This month is a special on both bowler hats and any hat you want painted a tacky green.
>>46139555
he did it for what was originally a good cause but by the time you meet him he only cares about succeeding in the task he outlined for himself, the fact that it saved millions of lives was incidental at that point which you can mention to him and he doesn't even object to it.
He was the very definition of neutral evil and a much better character for it.
>>46139513
Without alignments there's no way for the teenage boys playing the game to understand the moral and ethical ramifications of their characters' actions.
>>46139623
This sounds like an amazing place, to be perfectly honest. I would get the ugliest hats possible just for the conversation fuel alone.
>My monastery tradition is debauchery, randomness and generally being as chaotic as possible, but i'm totally lawful for following that tradition.
>>46138932
Then why are you here?
>>46139205
they need a little red bar that empties so they can feel better about themselves.
and i generally agree with this >>46139079 because it gives more focus on the game and not so much on how many point you need to level up.
>>46138354
You can't. RIP Time Cube, 1997-2015.
>>46139278
Seems like the shopkeeper could have been havin a cheeky wank in the back room
>>46139739
Honestly, I feel this is a good thing. That guy's insanity was a corrupting force.
>>46139692
To be fair, I imagine that's mostly because of the bullshit that is alignment restrictions.
I mean it's still a retarded fucking excuse, but also the only way to try to play a monk who isn't lawful by rules.
>>46139706
Stories, weapons threads, and quests.
>>46139513
I mostly like alignments for aesthetic reasons. They make for nice fuel when considering how to play a character.
They don't need to be totally consistent because they are there mostly to frame a player's actions.
And I see no reason why a character should only be one alignment. There are multiple ways of viewing morality and multiple ways of playing it out in game.
Also, it just looks nice on a character sheet.
>>46139692
>>46139777
This probably doesn't mean much, but in 3.5, I believe the Drunken Master prestige class required you to become Chaotic. So that excuse doesn't really work, at least not in 3.pf.
>>46138941
>not playing a vengeance pladin
>>46139278
Maybe there's a day when businesses are closed for religious reasons, as was the case in Christendom until recently.
>>46139453
That girl reading a story to the imps, 10/10 waifuable
>>46139739
Wayback Machine has it archived:
https://web.archive.org/web/*/timecube.com
>>46139789
>quests
Every time.
Literally every time the worst posters who don't even give a fuck about /tg/ hobbies start talking about what they *do* actually come here for, quest threads are invariably counted among them.
And questfags still claim to not be cancer.
>>46139644
He really was a brilliant character on a game with some deep, deep flaws. He reminds me of Kreia
Also, his appearance on the trailer made me buy the game on the first place
What happened to him after MotB? He was imprisoned in hell?
>>46139231
for any non "lawful", and in some settings even lawful ones that is a perfektly valid way to handle the situation
shure, the party could have called the guard but wich adventurer that has some honor does this?
>>46137623
>I kill the orphans.
>Why?
>Because they'll starve to death slowly and letting them live in poverty is evil. It's merciful to kill them quickly and spare them the trouble.
>Why not just find them a good place to live?
>That will take too long. Getting sidetracked when the world is at stake would be evil compared to what little good would come of it.
Fucking Ryan.
>>46139914
You can whine all you want, that won't fix anything.
>eating sentient beings is good
>trying to have sex with an intoxicated 14 year old girl is honorable/good
>trying to make the rogue diarrhea is good
>killing the kind playful wizard, after raiding his house for loot is honorable/good
>trying to kill the druid for restoring his woods is honorable/good
>desecrating a shrine to Bahamut is good
God damn half-orc Noble Knights
>>46138661
>>46138740
"Wanting to get some cash and simply not giving a damn that it belongs to someone else is neutral"
So your argument is that it is neutral because you only think about your own gain, and do not care about the suffering of others. Would that justify rape, if you do it only for your own pleasure and don't care about taking it from another? Would it justify taking food or medicine from people who need it simply because you want it?
You can take the logic you're displaying further, in that if a person desires to murder simply for the sake of murder, it would not be evil, as they are not murdering to be evil, they are murdering to satiate their desire for murder while denying anyone else's desire, which is a solipsistic act.
Good is defined by empathy without selfishness, the ability to feel for others and put their needs before your own. Evil is selfishness without empathy, the desire to put your own needs before all others without care, while neutral is a more complex mixture, I would say selfishness with empathy. You look after yourself over others, but you understand that your actions can hurt people, and seek to avoid it when possible.
>>46139926
Eventually his soul made its way to the lower planes because he already made peace with it and didn't bother going for true immortality. He played his part and faded away.
No true happy ending for him, but he wasn't the hero at that point anymore.
>>46139777
Silly part is, most GMs, i imagine, would just straight let you play a monk of any alignment and background if you just say that you like the class mechanics but don't carry for mandatory fluff.
>>46139947
Indifference is the same as neutrality. If you don't care then you're neutral.
>>46139945
>trying to make the rogue diarrhea is good
at least this is dependent on the situation
>>46140031
It's not indifference. You are actively hurting someone else for selfish reasons.
>>46140031
Being an indifferent 3RD PARTY is neutral. Being an indifferent 1ST PARTY is usually evil.
To explain, if you see someone getting mugged and you walk past, that is neutral. If you yourself are doing the mugging and don't care, that is evil.
>>46140041
is the wolf evil for killing sheeps?
>>46138472
This. Timecube isn't lolrandum, it's basically schizophrenic ravings written down.
>>46139440
>Whoa there! Better hurry, I hear the fedora store closes early on Sundays.
I'd like to hear you try lecture your forefathers like this when you never had to serve your country.
>>46137839
That's not good, it's just less evil.
The character would be neutral at best. Emphasizing 'at best'.
>>46139513
But that would be different, and players don't like things that are different.
>>46139942
Considering the questfag scum can no longer be repelled by anything short of a mod overthrow, grats cancer, you're permitted on our board. Doesn't mean you're liked, only tolerated.
>>46140129
>on our board
How cute, the little shitposter thinks it's people.
>>46140065
Animals without proper intelligence, who do not have the capacity to understand their actions outside of survival, are neutral, because they do not have the capacity to be good, evil, chaotic, or lawful. If we're still talking about D&D and Pathfinder, it's literally "animals and other creatures incapable of moral action are neutral".
If they cannot understand their actions, they are neutral. A human born with a rare condition that makes him unable to feel any empathy at all would be neutral, as he is literally unable to comprehend the morality of his actions.
>>46140163
Even sociopath are aware they're doing something unacceptable, since they're hiding their actions.
>>46138319
At least the Bard was a good sport about facing the consequences of his actions?
>>46139513
it sucks but >>46140090
>>46139648
>>46139580
and>>46139548
are right
players are too pleb to know how to into logical role-playing without alignments
>>46137623
Private property is clearly lawful evil, so robing a store is probably neutral or a good act depending on the situation.
>>46138488
>who believed religion was enslavement or some crap like that.
Well it basically is. or at least was. Religion is a codified set of rules for living in a society with a god attached to give it some clout. Before we get a thousand fedora wearing fat guys posted in response, realistically that's what the Vatican does and there's a lot of truly specific rules in religion.
I mean, do we really think God cares if you eat shellfish? Of course not, even if god existed that's obviously just in there because the priesthood and rabbis/imams historically played the role of teachers and making it a god thing makes it more enforceable.
In fact almost the entirety of the old testament rules are common sense rules for living in a small middle eastern society. Don't eat food that spoils quickly in heat, don't steal stuff from one of your fifteen neighbours or fuck his wife because fucker you live in a tiny-ass village and everyone will find out.
>>46140193
>players are too pleb to know how to into logical role-playing without alignments
Sounds like some people need better friends, but that's their problem. I'll just enjoy my group that handles non-alignment systems just fine without murdering each other and everything in sight without some rulebook telling them how to behave.
>>46137880
How does someone even get convinced that offering a human sacrifice to an evil god is not capital E Evil? There's a handful of things that undeniably say "bad guy" in big flashing lights, and that's at the top of the list.
>>46137623
Told the story here a few times but the dude wanted to eat a sapient creature alive, taking time out from saving the village of people under attack by a cult alongside a fucking dragon and kobolds, because it ate ''his'' sheep.
Not that he owned the sheep, he'd killed it a moment before a fight and wanted to eat it so he decided it was his.
And all this while insisting it was totally CG.
>>46140240
*tips fedora*
>>46140175
They hide it out of survival instinct, much like an animal. They do not comprehend that they are hurting other people, they do it because if they did not hide their actions, they would be killed or put in jail.
And even then, it is still a greyer area, as a sociopath does have intelligence, and even though they cannot personally understand the idea that other people have feelings, they may be able to understand social order in what they should or should not do, so sometimes their actions can still be justified as evil.
You can spot the americans in this thread by the amount of "robbing a store to save orphans is EVIL. YOU SHOULD NEVER DO IT" answers.
Must be hard to live in a country that has brainwashed you into believing that robbing a store is like murdering a virgin or raping a little girl.
>>46140241
you gotta realize though, D&D is the starter/normie game. if you're playing a non-alignment system there's a good chance all your players know what's up and aquainted with roleplaying
this issue only exists in D&D i'd imagine
then again i wouldn't know; i don't play ;-;
>>46140041
Taking somebody's money is not the same as injuring someone. If you don't acknowledge the right to own property then you can even argue that the robbery has not even anything to do with the "victim" as the money wasn't even his in the first place. The method which was used to rob the money is what defines if the act was evil, breaking the law simply makes you unlawful.
If the robbery consist of you threatening the victim to hand over the money than yes, that would be evil.
If you first steal the money, the victim tries taking it back and you then threaten him, it's self defense and your right to do so.
If you walk in and simply steal shit without doing anything towards the "victim" it's just theft and completely non-evil, unlawful behavior.
>>46140245
He hadn't rationalized it, really. Doing the sacrifice would grant the character whatever magical item they "most desired" (within reason). The Paladin was trapped in a hyperbolic time chamber until they became really old, so a crate of potions of longevity were the best chance he had at turning back. That's what he was going to get if he did the sacrifice. I saw it as a moment of weakness (for the character and the player), so I was ready to make him fall the moment the sacrifice finished but the bard stopped it.
>>46140285
Nah, its a pretty universal problem.
Honestly, I don't see an issue with alignments so long as they aren't intricately tied into the game mechanics. I use them as an example of how the person sees themselves and is perceived by others. That is to say, a few sessions in the bard might think themselves CG, they're good but they cut corners, while everyone else might have decided they were LN because they had a beggar arrested for disrupting the peace or something
>>46140339
>Taking somebody's money is not the same as injuring someone
Yeah, sure, it's not like they'd starve without money.
OH WAIT
>>46137623
I've had players set a store on fire and then "help put out the fire and recover as much inventory as possible".
They then "forgot" to hand over the inventory.
>>46139939
Ryan sounds like he was too fucking lazy to try finding a place for those orphans.
>>46140362
If they don't have any money they can you steal it. Or steal some food.
>>46140466
>they can you steal it
I want you to outta here.
>>46140433
There is an argument to be made about it though, on some level.
If, for example, I am living in abject poverty and recently had a child, is it worse for me to allow the child to starve or for me to rob a shop so I can afford to feed the child?
>>46140063
But what if you're mugging the victim not because you want money but simply because you like to mug people?
*continues to make a mockery of moral philosophy*
>>46139939
You should tell him that that the good dieties are not Utilitarian, and that by acting under such moral structure is being evil.
>>46137623
>Lawful good inquisitor/investigator type dude
>Sets an entire inn on fire in order to get a party member to leave
>Waterboards an informant
>Tortures a dude by having rats eat into his guts even after he gave us information
>Kicked down a door on a busy street and (purposefully) set the building on fire of a wanted suspect of what was ordered to be a stealth op.
>>46140488
This was meant to be a reply to >>46140362
>>46140488
They're both worse.
Yeah, man, sometimes all your choices are bad choices.
>>46139926
He says something about paying debts if he helps you at the gates.
Also I actually kinda liked how they spent most of act 2 making him out to be your main antagonist until you get to his haven (which is possibly the best designed quest in the OC)
>>46139426
>He didn't know they had no survival instinct.
Huh? They survived just fine from the sound of things.
>>46140280
>this bait
It's not equal to murder or raping but assaulting or threatening with weapons to steal from someone who is ussually unarmed is pretty evil.
>>46139215
LE means they operate purely for their own interests, having the mule work is better than a dead mule, having a good reputation and many allies is better than a pile of dead bodies, ect
>>46140559
They're both bad, sure, but is letting a kid starve really as bad as stealing like $20 and some baby formula?
>>46140593
They're both bad. The rest depends from the point of view.
The law would say stealing is worse.
>>46140512
Its pretty lazy logic anyway. He could have literally just brought the orphan to a local church o something, no trouble.
>>46140618
I'd argue that with you. Letting the child die starve would be child abuse and letting them starve to death would be negligent homicide. Both are considered worse than theft.
>>46140593
Wow, it's like some evil acts can be done for good ends, thus meaning that the entire D&D alignment system is nothing but a way for newbies to bootstrap their way into roleplaying and not a serious examination of real human morality!
>>46140488
Which would make you feel worse.
>>46140638
Not in a medieval setting. Remember, the death rate among kids was extremely high back then.
>>46140642
Stealing being an objectively 1000% evil act is people's headcanon, it's never really stated and afaik even in Ravenloft couldn't really make you fall below "impure" which is about everyone's default.
>>46140618
That's just it, that comparison is not good/evil in how it is justified, it is almost purely a lawful/chaotic choice.
If someone works as hard as they can to support a child within the law, but the child dies anyway, the action would be lawful, leaning towards good (depending on how hard they tried). Wherein if someone was to steal to feed the child, it would be any chaotic alignment, leaning towards good (depending on if they only stole to feed the child, versus succumbing to greed).
>>46140642
That is sort of the point I was making, yes.
Nice shitpost though.
As I said here >>46140356 though, I don't see it as an entirely shitty system. Its generally badly implemented but it can be used to some good.
>>46140673
Fair point, I was operating under the presumption of a more modern setting. Sorry for any confusion.
>>46140623
I'm not saying it isn't lazy as shit, I'm just giving a way to refute any and all of those styles of arguments, my personal favourite being the:
>It's not evil to murder a hundred if we save a hundred plus 1!
>>46140709
That's a recurring problem that I often met.
People lose sight of the initial argument and it ends being "but it doesn't happen like that now!"
>>46137623
>NECROMANCY IS EVIL
but im curing the townsfolk, if anything i should be breaking alignment for being good
>NECROMANCY
>IS
>EVIL
>>46140593
Still bad enough to be Evil. Go sell your blood and use that money to buy it instead.
>alignment threads
But, while I have the opportunity to ask, what are you lot's opinions on the distribution of different alignments?
Personally, I always got the sense that the vast majority of people are neutral. They care about things they have a personal investment in, like their friends and family and personal enemies, and they let Good people lead them and set the laws because it's more beneficial to them, but they personally wouldn't go out of their way to be nice or cruel to a stranger. They go along with laws and traditions because it's less bother than not doing so.
And people who are actually capital-letter Good or Evil are exceptional people, whichever they are. Being either Good or Evil involves going beyond merely what the circumstances of your life dictate to you, like a Good person raised in the shitties slum will still be a great person and and Evil person who's raised by the kindest people with no wants will still be a bastard. And only something like only 5% of the population are properly, intrinsically Good or Evil.
Does that seem reasonable?
>>46140774
Back when healing was necromancy, only specific spells in necromancy were considered evil
>>46140790
>t. Javert
Again it's more Law vs Chaos.
>>46139548
Trap doors.
>>46140774
I had a doctor who specialized in strictly anatomical necromancy (i.e, only allowed myself to take stuff like wrack, burning blood, ect.). I never raised the dead, never bound ghosts and shit, and used my needle to reattach limbs and sometimes improve people.
The only good necromancy spell I had was the heal one that gave my blood to others for health. Even with the 'evil' descriptor in 3.5, there was no way my character was considered evil. Yet my GM constantly gave me powers checks for that shit.
>>46140733
Its particularly bad on /tg/ I find, since you can be talking about all sorts of systems and thus time frames.
Whats lawful in D&D isn't necessarily so in a modern game and unless you clarify your time frame then it falls apart.
>>46140720
Personally, as a DM I would rule actively killing the hundred people as evil unless there was sufficient external factors such that it was the only option. Now, letting 100 people die to save 101 is... neutral at best. Being good isn't easy, thats the point. Neutral is the baseline.
>>46140790
That assumes you're somewhere that will pay you for it, first off, and that they'd take it off you. If you go black market, you risk being killed for all your blood instead and if you sell your blood despite being, say, knowingly HIV Positive, thats pretty evil too isn't it?
Besides, Im not arguing that its evil, Im discussing which is the greater evil: Allowing a charge in your care to die so you can be Mr. Goodguy or stealing to feed them?
>>46140815
Thats usually how I do it too. Neutral is baseline, everything else is dictated by actions.
>>46140881
>Yet my GM constantly gave me powers checks for that shit.
Maybe because the source is evil.
>>46140774
Necromantic spells on their own aren't evil, it's evil aligned necromantic spells that are really bad, and I highly doubt that any necromantic healing spell would be considered evil, you DM sounds like a jerk.
Otherwise, if we're talking about stuff like animate dead, the reason it is considered evil is because it is literally an affront to life and the good gods. If you're playing in a setting where raising undead isn't sacrilege, hugely insulting to the dead person (it's close to rape in that you use their body without permission, but that really depends on the style of setting. If there is no afterlife this point is near moot, and if there is an afterlife and you kindly ask the dead person and they say yes, it shouldn't be evil), insulting to their surviving family members, and doesn't piss off some gods, then it should be perfectly fine.
>>46140720
There are legitimate arguments to be made against utilitarianism even without involving a 2-axis alignment system that has as its main purpose a quick way to explain to children than "protection from evil" doesn't affect angels.
>>46140932
But thats what I'm talking about. Intent should really the deciding factor, even if it is considered negative energy.
>>46140881
Your DM is dumb, 2E's Ravenloft fan material (which is borderline official enough that some of it was added to the 3rd edition sourcebooks) actually included a surgeon kit for PC necromancers, and it never called for a powers check.
>>46140936
>Necromantic spells on their own aren't evil
Except in settings where necromancy is intrinsically evil. In Linley's Dungeon Crawl you can be punished by the god of healing for casting regeneration on yourself.
>>46137641
I'll take 'things that never happened' for 300 dollars, Bill.
>>46140339
Did you just try to claim its okay to use force to prevent people reclaiming their property after you steal it?
You need help.
>>46140881
Well if you're using the ravenloft power checks, they should be halved or even fourthed if you're using the spell for a good cause, and doing so counts as a good act. Even so, the dark powers are attracted when you cast an evil spell because they are literally the dark powers, and by casting the spell you are using their might, so the checks at a reduced chance of actually getting hit by them is perfectly justifiable.
What isn't justifiable is hitting you with checks when performing surgery, or using non-evil necromantic spells, but I may be reading your post incorrectly.
>>46140964
Not really. Evil power corrupts.
Let's take Warhammer fantasy for example.
You are cultist leader because your people are oppressed by the jerkass noble. You try to gain dark powers to help your people. IF you keep it on, you still will sooner or later be a mutated monster, loosing your mind and go on a killing spree.
Of course this depends on the world you are playing in, but when the gm says it is like that, I don'T see any flaws.
>>46141001
That's true, it varies from system to system, it was my mistake in assuming the source material for the discussion. At that point it's a DM vs. Rulebook situation, which thankfully avoids the entire alignment argument, but it still kinda sucks.
>>46137623
Invite him to a game, if he refuses, tell him there will be sex afterwards.
Simple.
>>46141001
That's gotta be the stupidest thing I've heard, I mean it makes sense in the context of the setting but it still sounds hilariously off.
>>46141150
Wrong thread bro. I think.I hope
>>46140815
>what are you lot's opinions on the distribution of different alignments?
11% LG. 11% NG. 11% CG. 11% LE. 11% NE. 11% CE. 11% LN. 11% CN. 12% TN.
I have very little interest in speaking of exceptional Good and exceptional Evil, with capital letters. If you're Evil-aligned, as a member of a humanoid race, you are roughly within the bottom 3 deciles of people in terms of "being prosocial and helping others". As far as I'm concerned, that's shitty enough to be Evil-aligned. And being in the top deciles is kind of to be Good-aligned.
If nothing else, it seems to be what many players intend when they write Good on their character sheet. No reason not to make that symmetric for Evil.
>>46141132
Ideally DMs would be putting enough work into their settings to answer questions like these, rather than depending on what the rulebook may or may not say.
Also, the alignment system should be irrelevant. It shouldn't matter whether a necromantic healing spell is 'evil' in some sense that's divorced from the world. Instead, we should be interested in what individual gods and societies think about this act.
>>46140143
>Questfags
>Trying to pass judgement on who is considered people
>>46141244
>using reaction pics like it's reddit
We all know who the cancer is, here.
>>46141223
I already addressed that in my original post, but many of the "evil" spells are evil not only because of the outcome, but also that in casting them you commit an evil act. Maybe one of the spell components of an evil spell is a babies eye or something just as gruesome? Maybe by casting the spell you are empowering an evil deity, or at the very least channeling their power? There are just as many reasons why these spells are evil as why they can be good, which is why personally I use the book ruling unless I personally change the setting, or the story calls for a slight change (such as one game where all magic was inherently evil as it empowered the dark god of magic and helped destroy the fabric of reality).
>>46141244
>>46141327
Both of you are huge faggots desu famlay
>>46140279
Plenty of sociopaths perfectly understand that they're doing evil shit and hurting other people by simply making logical deductions. What they can't do is empathize, which lets them commit evil acts without much care while also avoiding the consequences of their actions
>>46140031
You couldn't be more wrong. Hurting others for no good reason is evil, full stop. In many cases, it's evil even if you DO have a good reason. You're just a chaotic evil fuckhead IRL.
>>46141460
There's a difference between being told that something is evil, and actually understanding any kind of morality. A dog can be instructed to do simple tasks, even save people's lives or kill people, but it doesn't comprehend the morality of it's actions, it is just doing as it is told. The same would be true with your example sociopath, they are told not to kill people, but they cannot comprehend why, because they are a sociopath. It also works both ways, a sociopath would be neutral if they act good or bad, because they have no actual understanding of the meaning of their actions on the good/evil spectrum.
>>46141509
>Hurting others for no good reason is evil
Hurting others is ALWAYS evil.
It's just slightly less evil when it's self-defence.
>>46137930
>stealing
>not evil
???
>>46141685
Apparently, it's okay to steal if it hlps stopping the BBEG.
>>46141685
>>46141718
It's evil, just sometimes its the lesser of 2 evils, which people like to incorrectly refer to as neutral.
>>46141685
>You will starve again unless you know the meaning of the law
Are too high taxes evil?
First off, a lot of you need to know the difference between robbing and burgling
Robbing means you are using a weapon in some way to part someone of their belongings.
Burgling is just taking someone's belongings and running.
One is more evil than the other but both are evil. Especially robbing.
IMO the problem with alignment is the evil/good axis, misleading people into thinking it's a canvas for your character ethics.
When it's really just an alignment system. Law and Chaos are cosmic rules and all that.
The evil good axis is here to differentiate between two kinds of demons and angels most of the time.
>>46141759
If it is because of the greed of the monarch or governing body, absolutely, but there are many reasons as to why it could be neutral or good.
>>46141781
There's also a tendency among certain players to mistake the ethical axis for the moral axis.
>>46140582
Yeah you could spin it that way, but it really was a case of the only player with a sense of empathy being the one who aesthetically likes evil stuff.
>>46137623
Our two Paladins rape-interrogated a mayor for information while the rest of the party was fighting undead underneath the graveyard. I was annoyed at first, but quickly got over it.
We ourselves did a bunch of silly alignment breaking things later, like planning and successfully performing a bank heist out of boredom. We only heard that the bank was evil after the fact. Hell, one time I used my Helm of Telepathy to convince the prison bitch dwarf to rise through the jail hierarchy and unite all of the prison gangs under his banner, just so we could finish a quest in the most amusing way possible.
>>46141759
Taxing people to starvation is evil unless there is literally no other option and the taxes are being used for a necessary, good, objective.
Using them to build more temples to a god is evil, using them to build defences because theres some massive horde of orcs incoming and everyone will die without the defences is neutral.
>>46141781
That's kind of why I support the idea of good/evil and exceptional. Like, they're normally reserved for angels and demons, so if you're a mortal who registers as good or evil you're basically an angel or demon stuffed into a flesh-and-blood body. The purity or corruption in your soul is to such an extent that you've become a holy or unholy being who radiates magical good/evil energy, albeit in small amount compared to an outsider.
>>46141076
>What isn't justifiable is hitting you with checks when performing surgery, or using non-evil necromantic spells, but I may be reading your post incorrectly.
By RAW, all necromancy spells except passive ones that don't actually do anything(like Deathwatch) require a powers check, full stop. At least in 3.5 where healing is no longer necromancy. Necromancy is, if not inherently evil, then at least inherently corrupting, full stop. Ravenloft doesn't allow for the morally grey to stay that way for very long.
>>46141895
>rather than the player, the dices decide of your alignement
>>46137839
Why do actions always need to be good? Justification doesn't change their nature. Murdering a man before he can murder a hundred more (assuming innocent civilians and raging psychopath killer) is pretty much justifiable, and arguably a good action, but can't the act of killing simply be always bad while in plenty of cases still justifiable or even completely necessary?
Why do we feel the need to justifiably wash our hands of evil acts? Does an action that is evil by nature prohibit taking it? Fuck, no! Fuck pacifism and hippie bullshit and fuck your justifications about doing bad things by defining good as "better than the other bad" or "for a good goal." Engagement in evil shouldn't be a matter of "am I justified in this?" but a matter of recognizing and engaging in it willingly.
Similarly, alignment charts can be used this way as well. A Good character is simply more unwilling to engage in evil acts, choosing the moral high ground most often even at the expense of expediency and risk of great harm or personal sacrifice, rather than just a good-two-shoes. Similarly, and Evil character isn't a raving lunatic or a blood-drinking son of a bitch, but someone who understands that sometimes evil is necessary or more expedient a measure to achieve a goal.
Calling something clearly bad good because of the ends or the contrast in evils is stupid. We don't need something to be unilaterally good in order to engage with it, we don't need to wash our hands of evil or make ourselves feel good about doing bad things so we can still call ourselves good people. Grow a spine and have the courage or willingness to recognize and engage in, or not engage in, evil without using justification and necessity to wash our hands of it, even if we have no other choice.
>>46141761
Alright, Bilbo is evil then. Good to know.
>law
>has anything to do with what's "legal"
This misunderstanding, every damn time. It really should've just been called "order." Does the character generally take actions that bring order into the world, or chaos? It's as simple as that.
>marauders pillage a village and burn it down
>brought chaos and destruction
>marauders demand regular payments from a village under threat of violence
>brought a rigid, structured order
Doesn't matter that they aren't behaving legally. Law and chaos are forces that don't give a damn what's written on sheets of paper.
>>46141759
Do they cause unnecessary suffering? If yes, they're evil. If no, and they aren't being funnelled to some evil or questionable purpose(like making the king richer), then they aren't. It's only a question of how do you define unnecessary suffering.
>>46141996
This is accurate.
Also, early rules and regards for alignment imply that it's a known thing, and characters are aware of their own alignment, which has some really weird implications about the setting.
>>46141959
Powers check aren't supposed to affect your alignment unless you fail them hardcore.
>>46141895
I don't know what the 3.5 core book said for Ravenloft, but in 2e you only rolled a powers check if the spell was evil no matter the school, it was just easier to fall if it was necromancy.
>>46141959
"The road to hell is paved with good intentions." Ravenloft as a setting is full of examples of this. You can only get away with doing questionable setting and not atoning for it for so long.
Fun fact: failing powers checks doesn't actually change your alignment. It's the acts themselves that change your alignment. The powers checks merely determine whether your evil causes you to become a darklord or not.
>>46142138
>I don't know what the 3.5 core book said for Ravenloft, but in 2e you only rolled a powers check if the spell was evil no matter the school, it was just easier to fall if it was necromancy.
As I recall, 2e also had healing spells be necromancy. But yes, in 3.5 all necromancy spells have a powers check attached except for some specific exceptions.
>>46142101
I always presume its because of logical deduction in cases where its objective. For example, all Paladins are lawful and good inherently so the paladin knows hes lg.
I like to have 2 counts of alignment, personally. What the PC thinks of themself, which is what they start as, and what they act like which is their original alignment influenced by their actions.
>>46137641
Terry goodkind level writing right here.
>>46140527
LG is also cited as the crazed Zealot alignment, desu
>>46141637
Someone needs to tell every paladin that they've fallen then
>>46142817
A paladin is just a bigot murderhobo who thinks it's okay to kill anyone believing in a different god.
>>46137623
On the G/E divide it is, it probably leads to Chaotic though
>>46139914
You know, /tg/ can be a good board to get people in to RPGs.
>>46143386
Only if you either have a REALLY good reason to do it or the storeowner is evil. Otherwise it's most definitely evil.
>>46141685
Ownership is the evil, anon.
>>46143458
It's not
>>46138211
What do you mean "miss" it's still going.
>>46141750
Depends on the motive. If you're robbing someone to help the poor or feed your child, its kind of a wash.
If you're robbing because you want money for you, evil is fair.
>>46144630
IT IS?
>>46144715
That would be why I said ''sometimes its the lesser of 2 evils'' yes.
Although, if we're looking at Robin Hood style actions when we say ''help the poor'' then we're looking at good because Robin Hoods actions were based on a rate of taxation which was causing starvation and the ilk imposed by an illegitimate authority, ergo he was opposing evil actions.
On the other hand, robbing to give to the poor is a dick move. Why would you not just use your own money? If you can't, don't give to the poor, dont take it from someone else.
>>46144739
>>46144966
Happiness.
>>46137623
>Yes going to kill him, but he provoked me, he said I was an idiot! There's no way that's evil.
>>46139926
Honestly, aside from some weird pacing, NWN2 is one of the greatest games of the last decade (10 years old now, holy fuck). I love that the first time you play through, you assume that the fight in the intro movie is just "lol epic battle scene so awesum," but then once you get (fairly deep) into the campaign you realize what it really is. That was a real mindjob for 12-year-old me when I realized what was being depicted.
>>46145044
Only played Baldur's Gate. Never went far because I was used to Starcraft, but I still figured most of the plot thanks to the intro, the death cutscene, and the singers you meet in the first castle.
>>46144806
> If you can't, don't give to the poor, dont take it from someone else.
Dick move, maybe. Not evil though, if you don't have the money, and it means the survival of someone who otherwise wouldn't (and doesn't threaten the survival of the mark). It is definitely chaotic, however.
>>46145114
Provided its someone whom can take the hit comfortably, like you said, yeah.
>>46140211
Robin Hood was bald?
>>46140240
>I mean, do we really think God cares if you eat shellfish? Of course not, even if god existed that's obviously just in there because the priesthood and rabbis/imams historically played the role of teachers and making it a god thing makes it more enforceable.
The whole point of the Abrahmic God is that He is a personal one and does care about the individual going ons of the people.
>Turning in the resistance against the evil Duke, the people we're supposed to be helping.
The justification: "I'm a Paladin, and what they're doing is illegal. I HAVE to turn them in."
>>46137623
Player used the move power on a npc trader's daughter to coerce him into handing over his medium freighter. Used dark side pips and light side pips to pinball a screaming twilek toddler across a spaceport in front of her restrained father.
I pointed out that using illegal space wizard powers in public to torture children and extort entrepreneurs on a mid rim imperial world was going to draw out the local inquisitors. Then said he, and anyone allowing that to happen, would go full dark side.
He said "they're doing business with the empire, and we need a ship to fight for the light side."
Bounty Hunter PC then double aim heavy blaster pistol'd the psychotic sage. Bounty hunter hailed as local hero, and used the bounty payout for a live capture of force sensitive to pay down his obligation and buy a refurbished imperial patrol boat.
>>46141895
>>46142138
I'd love to know where you got the 3.5 ravenloft rules, as I have been running a pathfinder game in a similar setting, and using something more compatible would be preferred to the homebrew set I made. If there are no 3.5 ravenloft rulings, then how can you definitively state that all necromantic spells take checks, when only evil necromantic spells needed them in previous editions, albiet with evil necromantic spells having a much higher chance of failure.
>>46145426
Thats just a shitty paladin, and also a person who fundamentally doesn't understand the lawful good alignment.
Quick question for a total D&D newbie trying to bullshit his way through DMing for a group of other newbies.
In general, what does a "good" character do in "kill one to save the group" situations?
