Dead Horse Interchange

I thought this system is just the basis for the boardgame and the video games aka for the lulz. How come I got true neutral out of it when I did the test?

http://easydamus.com/alignment.html
http://easydamus.com/trueneutral.html

What alignment is everyone else?
http://easydamus.com/alignmenttest.html

Damn, nigga. This shit is new and fresh.

Lawful Neutral, baby. I'm a protagonist! Or a Modron.

And I would say most people will gravitate towards at least half-neutral, because any options outside of that get very cartoonishly stupid very fast.

5. If your family had arranged your marriage to someone loathsome...

Didn't know this test was for muslims.

I got true neutral.

Yeah apparently most people are supposed to be true neutral, it says. I played Paladin in some D&D games like Icewind Dale but that's mostly because they did a poor job at displaying evil. I guess this whole system makes not much sense for the framework of a video game or even a boardgame.



3:50

I get that alignment can be flexible but he got a thing wrong, it says on that homepage that a true neutral character prefers good instead of evil if given the choice and will put the benefits of his close relatives over everything else.

He got called out

A True Neutral character in a losing battle would NOT flip flop...that's more Neutral Evil. A True Neutral character would realize this is just the world and how it is balancing itself. Yes they don't want to die but for an adventuring group that they have been with, they would NOT try to kill them.

I'd say you always run into problems giving a nuanced view of evil if "evil" is not only objective, but a quantifiable cosmic metric.

I looked at what definition the site gives and I think the problem is that it assumes that destroying life just for the sake of it is a bad trait (evil). Inside moral relativism in the world of humanity it is for the most part but what if we one day find an alien race out there which has a rich culture like us but their central existence is based on destroying life.

Then there is that conflict of killing good vs evil. Good is assumed moral superior compared to evil but good and evil can actually start to swim into each other. If the Nazi's gassed alot of people of a certain group and then they get captured by relatives of that certain group and that group takes revenge on the Nazi's then what would you call that. Same with Batman, if you overdo it you become what you fight against.

Also why would evil characters not work within a group I guess Jared interpreted it wrong. You can have a evil group in Baldurs Gate and they don't beat the shit out of each other.

The creator hasn't put much thought into it or he just wanted to get it done

The part about destroying life is definitely true. The Assassin, in a lot of older editions, can only be taken by Evil characters. Because they get paid for murderizing stuff. Which is totally not what every D&D party in the history of forever already does on a regular basis.

There's also the problem of Paladins and Clerics being able to see if you're Evil. Just imagine what this could do to your average fantasy setting if the various NPC kings and lords bothered to capitalize on that to create some sort of Minority Report utopia. Clerics can even sense your Alignment on the Lawful/Chaotic-axis, just in case you want to get rid of anarchists, too.

Bottom line is: the whole Alignment system itself is stupid, and any edition / fork that does away with it will lose absolutely nothing of value in the process. It might add some flavor to extradimensional beings who are literally made out of Evil or Chaos, but that's about it.

I remember the good ole days where you had to roleplay your alignment for paladins or the DM could take away your powers and turn you into a fighter basically.

mad bum wrote: ↑

Wed Aug 15, 2018 4:07 pm

roleplay your alignment for paladins

30:19 prepare for the sickest paladin roleplay you will ever encounter