Dumbest Official Take on Alignment?

[The Adventurer's Almanac]

Sounds like a creative use of Negative Energy to me.

[rampaging-poet]

"We've just struck a vein of Pure Evil. Doesn't even need refining, it's the good stuff. With this we can power the Evil Reactors needed to keep the lights on in people's homes, improving quality of life for everyone." Just remember to build your Evil Reactors far enough away from cities that the screams of the damned as the Pure Evil is burned don't cause too much harmful noise pollution.

Doom 2016 in a nutshell.

[Sunwitch]

Wheaw we fine dat meteow, we'w fine Docta Wiwey https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8h4Vt8MR8NY

[Foxwarrior]

Doom 2016 in a nutshell.

Actually I was thinking of fossil fuels. In Doom 2016 the energy itself is so harmless doomguy ingests it despite being a demon-hating fanatic, and the bad stuff is all caused by bad trade deals.

[Hadanelith]

You can just *say* Ghost Rock. We've talked about Deadlands enough.

[Wulfbanes]

Today's XKCD seems relevant.

[Woot]

However, as the definitive example of how alignment doesn't mean shit I present "True Neutral"

True neutral alignment has TWO definitions that are not at all similar presented in the rulebook from at least 3rd edition onward. It actually has a 3rd definition applied in the monster manual.

The first definition for true neutral presented is that its the most common alignment and represents a sentient creature that acts in their own general self interest without a lot of thought put into good/evil lawful/chaotic.

The second definition is a character who actively seeks to balance good/evil and law/chaos. This is the classical D&D druid who has to kick a puppy for every old lady they help across the street.

This second definition seems to have acquired meme status - I see variants of it everywhere, all boiling down to a very simple "I must do 1 good thing per 1 bad thing" or somesuch. Do people seriously think that's what that means, or are you just exaggerating for effect? I've never had the impression that TN worked that way at all, and want to make sure I'm not just misinterpreting things before I engage in that dumbest of all nerd pasttimes, An Online Argument About Alignment. I've always understood "maintaining the balance" to be more holistic and less accounting-based, a la

True Neutral: True neutral characters believe in the ultimate balance of forces, and they refuse to see actions as either good or evil. Since the majority of people in the world make judgments, true neutral characters are extremely rare. True neutrals do their best to avoid siding with the forces of either good or evil, law or chaos. It is their duty to see that all of these forces remain in balanced contention.
True neutral characters sometimes find themselves forced into rather peculiar alliances. To a great extent, they are compelled to side with the underdog in any given situation, sometimes even changing sides as the previous loser becomes the winner. A true neutral druid might join the local barony to put down a tribe of evil gnolls, only to drop out or switch sides when the gnolls were brought to the brink of destruction. He would seek to prevent either side from becoming too powerful. Clearly, there are very few true neutral characters in the world.

[hyzmarca]

Just as a point of discussion, wouldn't alignment make more sense in a world where there are literal gods which you know are not just figments of your imagination (due to their clerics having actual magic powers through their worship), which require you to behave in a certain way to get into their version of the afterlife?

Literal gods make two axis alignment make less sense, not more, if you treat the gods as arbiters of morality instead of just really powerful dudes.

D&D is built on the assumption that the gods are just really powerful dudes.

[GnomeWorks]

This second definition seems to have acquired meme status - I see variants of it everywhere, all boiling down to a very simple "I must do 1 good thing per 1 bad thing" or somesuch. Do people seriously think that's what that means, or are you just exaggerating for effect?

My folks - who primarily do 1e, 2e, or various variants thereof - work with this interpretation.

Druids, specifically, are basically required to turn into assholes whenever their party is winning, because of their TN alignment. I don't know if druids are specifically not allowed as PCs, but in... twenty years or so, I've literally never seen or heard of one at their table, and I'd presume it's because of how they interpret TN.

[OgreBattle]

How would different alignments approach the Israel-Palestine question

[deaddmwalking]

How would different alignments approach the Israel-Palestine question

Answering this question requires that you assign alignments to real-life human groups. Depending on who you assign to 'good' and 'evil' in the conflict, your responses will be reversed. If you accept the nuance that both sides have legitimate concerns and grievances and that finding solutions where everyone can be satisfied (ie, how do you allow freedom of borders and economic expansion while also maintaining security from groups that are committed to your destruction and do not have reservations about attacks on civilian populations) then depends on your moral outlook.

A lawful good person would want to establish a covenant that guarantees rights and laws and could be enforced fairly to ensure that all sides were better off than before.

A neutral good person would try to encourage the two sides to reach a mutually agreeable solution.

A chaotic good person would focus on finding good people who could work together to build trust on an individual basis.

The various flavors of evil would encourage the conflict and try to escalate it in various ways.

[Darth Rabbitt]

Core 2e was really dumb. I mean I'm personally fond of the Mongrelman in the MONSTEROUS MANUAL:

Because of their appearance, mongrelmen are seldom welcome in any lawful or good society

Which is literally "good=pretty", but that's just one monster. The 2e Player's Handbook is worse for the game. CN is Two-Face (making decisions by flipping coins is literally given as an example). TN is "you switch sides randomly." These are both presented as player friendly options. And while they acknowledge that "disharmony and squabbling ruins the fun" as an argument against evil PCs they apparently don't think this is a problem for 2/3 of Neutrality. I also like the disconnect between "alignment is a tool, not a straightjacket" and "you should be penalized for changing alignment, even if you're not a paladin or something."

Just argh.

edit: DDMW, OgreBattle is clearly trolling here. I wouldn't bother gracing that bait with an answer.

[owlassociate]

How would different alignments approach the Israel-Palestine question

LG: liberate Palestine because it is good and just
NG: liberate Palestine because it will reduce suffering
CG: liberate Palestine because liberating is what you do
LN: liberate Palestine because your dad told you to
TN: liberate Palestine it's what everyone else around you is doing
CN: liberate Palestine because why the fuck not
LE: liberate Palestine because you see it as an opportunity to profit
NE: liberate Palestine because Israel fucked you over somehow
CE: liberate Palestine because you want to see Israel destroyed

[Libertad]

How would different alignments approach the Israel-Palestine question

Is Communism a Lawful or Chaotic ideology?

[The Adventurer's Almanac]

Hey, didn't you already ask that?

[owlassociate]

Is Communism a Lawful or Chaotic ideology?

Communism is like the epitome of Neutral Good

[Libertad]

Hey, didn't you already ask that?

...maybe, in another place or thread?

I was counter-shitposting OgreBattle.

[The Adventurer's Almanac]

Nevermind, it was someone else.

[Whatever]

How would different alignments approach the Israel-Palestine question

LG: engage this question in good faith because you might not be shitposting
NG: engage this question in good faith because the question is a worthwhile one, even if you're shitposting
CG: on-topic post that doesn't engage with this question, because you're shitposting

LN: call out your shitposting without regard for the thread's topic
TN: reads but doesn't post anything
CN: responds via Private Message

LE: counter-shitposts to get the thread back on topic
NE: counter-shitposts for political purposes
CE: counter-shitposts to get the thread further off-topic