How does alignment fucking work in D&D ?
So imagine there's a healing god and it says that all life is precious, you have to do all you can to help other people, you should never never harm anything and if you somehow end up in a kill or be killed situation, you should just suck it up and martyr yourself up. How would describe its alignment ? LG ?
>>48080131
>How does alignment fucking work in D&D ?
Poorly
>>48080131
>How does alignment fucking work in D&D ?
It doesn't.
>How would describe its alignment ?
True Stupid.
Just like spaces before punctuation.
>>48080131
It works if you don't think about it.
Though, the largest mistake people make with alignment is to base their actions off alignment, not their alignment off of actions.
>>48080581
>It works if you don't think about it.
That seems sadly right.
>>48080131
>So imagine
No.
>>48080831
????
There is only lawful and chaotic.
Good is "takes risks or otherwise goes out of the way to help people."
Evil is "takes risks or otherwise goes out of the way to hurt people."
Massive generalization, but I see alignments in D&D as a matter of extremes. The vast majority of people should be true neutral simply because their views and behavior are not that extreme. They might help or hurt someone if it's convenient, they might follow rules or break them (even personal ones) depending on what's convenient. To be Good or Evil, Lawful or Chaotic, you have to do things when it's inconvenient or dangerous to do so, and do these in extremes.
That, and Alignments are more of a description of general behavior. A single act can't really be of any particular alignment, unless it triggers a change in your overall behavior. You have to keep doing it to become a certain alignment.
That's how I see it, anyway.
>>48080581
100% correct. If you're using it correctly you don't even realize you're using it at all.
>>48080131
Alignments work the way the DM says they work.
>>48080131
Alignment systems change based on the setting. The DM should make and define his own alignments if he's making his own world.
>>48080831
Found the Pathfinder player.
>>48080131
Depends on edition and setting. I think the best one is the original one, with Law vs Chaos in a cosmic battle for supremacy, and characters either picking one of these teams or being the neutral folks caught in the middle of the war.
So I was following 5e's DM book section about "pantheons for your setting" and 2/3 of my gods ended up true neutral.
So let me check if I'm doing this right:
>Good is "caring about life of others, no matter what"
>Evil is "not caring about life of others at all"
>Neutral is "Depends a lot on the situation at hand"
>Lawful is "You are all about following, laws, rules, traditions and stuff"
>Chaotic is "You just do whatever you want"
>Neutral is "Depends a lot on the situation at hand"
>>48080131
But OP, a healing god that believes all life is precious wouldn't want you to end your own life when you could save so many more! Sometimes healing is applying a salve, sometime it means cutting off the diseased limb to stop the infection.
>>48083316
go a little less extreme
Good: I care about others more than myself
Evil: I care about myself more than others
Lawful: I follow my own set of rules
Chaotic: I follow my heart
for gods this can evolve to:
Good: I want to help the most amount of people and reward those that help others
Evil: I do what i want and reward those that benefit me/my cause
Lawful: I embody order and reward those that follow my laws
Chaotic: I do what feels right and reward those that follow their heart."right" doesn't necessarily mean GOOD
>>48083443
Do not ever listen to people who describe alignments this way. They're exactly the reason why the system is believed to be complete shit, mostly because "following heart" doesn't mean anything, and it's basically the same as "following my own set of rules."
Alignments are dumb only if you make them dumb: the concept between them is merely put plot roles in a grid and making characters more understandable from the outside. They're not the only thing on the PCs head, and most of all they're not rock solid: moral views (on law and society, but also on selfishness and caring about others) often change while the story unfolds.
Blaming the alignment only because you are too autistic to merge it with your character's personality is stupid as shit - so is blaming different system because your first 3.P group dumped you like a faggot.
>>48083608
>it's basically the same as "following my own set of rules."
Not him, but... that's bullshit. Chaotic in this context means following whims, instincts and emotions rather than having a set absolute code that you adhere to (including adhering to IN SPITE of whims, instincts and emotions).
If you don't get this then you're the one who isn't fit to talk about alignments.
>>48080131
basically Alignment never matters unless your DM wants to fuck you in the ass. In which case, sever.
>>48080131
It works as written, a general guideline for your character's morality and personal value.
Your example is literally lawful stupid, there's nothing really good or even lawful to be had from your contradictory example. You can't say all life is precious when you can't value your own in a kill or be killed scenario.
>>48083858
Stupid is always the key factor for whiners.
>>48080131
The alignment of that god would be chaotic stupid. It's impossible to not harm anything. You harm things just to survive. You harm things accidentally. You harm yourself by refusing to defend yourself.
Alignments work if you accept that they're imperfect and broad. They act as moral and philosophical leanings. Someone who is lawful will tend to be a team player and respect authority more than the average person. Someone who is evil has few scruples about benefiting at the cost of others. That's it.
D&D used to have more rigid alignment requirements for classes like paladins, but too many people got silly about the whole baby orc dilemma scenario. It worked perfectly fine provided that there was reasonable leniency in the sense that paladins would seek to strive for ideals but would sometimes have to deal with equally bad options and uncertain outcomes.
>>48080155
I just came into this thread to post exactly this.
>>48083443
>>48083316
I'd say that neutral is selfish, but not ruthlessly so. You're looking after number one, but you're not going to murder somebody to put a few coins in your pocket, even if you knew for a fact that you could get away with it. Evil goes beyond simple self-interest. You are willing to take extreme measures to get what you want and to protect the interests of you and yours. That doesn't mean you're a murder-happy psychotic who cackles about spreading darkness across the land (I mean, you could be, but you're probably not--very few evil people are). But you will crush or kill somebody who stands in your way, assuming you think you can get away with it.
>>48080131
>>48080131
People who ask questions like this invariably ping chaotic evil on alignment tests. Just sayin
>>48084408
Bam.
All you people and all your words are trumped by a fucking demotivational.
You should be ashamed of yourselves.
