Of the following two alignments which one is "worse" that is... which is a greater problem?

[futurebird@sauropods.win]

Of the following two alignments which one is "worse" that is... which is a greater problem?

[futurebird@sauropods.win]

Which alignment is the most annoying?

[orangelantern@labyrinth.zone]

@futurebird LE, because CE is much easier to identify.

[gbargoud@masto.nyc]

@futurebird

True lawful is the most annoying. People who will follow the law whether or not it's aligned with "good" or "evil"

[orangelantern@labyrinth.zone]

@futurebird TN, because there is no such thing as true neutrality or a “middle”. It just means you don’t want to get called out for being a prick.

[mhoye@cosocial.ca]

@futurebird If you haven't seen @darius 's "D&D alignment of the D&D alignments" chart, I'm happy to introduce you to it.

[mhoye@cosocial.ca]

@futurebird @darius

(This chart was a genuine "oh shit he's right" moment for me.)

[kkarhan@c.im]

@mhoye @futurebird @darius dafuq?

[mhoye@cosocial.ca]

@futurebird @darius I've sometimes wondered if there's a third axis for this chart that involves motivation: constructive, intrinsic, destructive.

[trillionb@mstdn.social]

@futurebird I voted for Chaotic Evil.

Not that the definition of the alignment caused a problem. Instead, players who chose it often seemed to use it as an excuse to steal the spotlight with nonsensical odious personal actions that derailed the flow of the game.

The party is meeting with an important NPC?
The "evil PC" decides to urinate in the corner of the room.

Stuff that isn't so much "evil", just annoying.

[uastronomer@mastodon.monoceros.co.za]

@futurebird Living in today's world, LE seems the obvious choice because it's evil backed by law. CE, everybody's against them, you can fight them no problem. But if you go up against LE, you have to play by their rules, and if you don't then you're a criminal and now you've fighting the entire system as well.

[detritus@todon.eu]

@mhoye @futurebird @darius got a link to where he explains it? Cuz im completely confused.

[futurebird@sauropods.win]

@kkarhan @mhoye @darius

Think of it as the alignment of the people attracted to that alignment.

[marta@corteximplant.com]

@futurebird I think this question is in a way antithetical to the idea of d&d alignments. It's forcing a dualist structure onto a moral/alignemt system that tries to be non-dualist. It's also assuming the alignment of the respondent to be some version of good but doesn't specify which one.

If you are chaotic good, lawful evil is the greater problem, if you are lawful good chaotic evil is a greater problem, if you are lawful evil chaotic evil is less helpful, if you're chaotic neutral, lawful neutral is a greater enemy to you than either chaotic good or chaotic evil, etc.

[futurebird@sauropods.win]

@mhoye @darius

"Neutral" isn't really neutral the way that I see it. (These are just my off the cuff opinions of what these mean.)

[marta@corteximplant.com]

@futurebird because our irl societies are heavily dualist players perceive the good/bad dichotomy the main one and the chaotic/lawful one to be just a "flavour" for it, but for intrinsically chaotic societies like the fey the good/bad is just the "flavour"

I mean this is my philosophical/ethical headcanon for d&d, fun is most important ofc

[futurebird@sauropods.win]

@marta

I don't think "being a problem" is the same thing as being just... evil. I agree that evil is a kind of boring one-dimensional notion. It's possible to see something as evil only if you ignore aspects of why it exists or how it works.

[p__x@mastodon.social]

@futurebird

lawful evil = evil with power.

[mrkeen@mastodon.social]

Is this about the two US parties?

[distrowatch@mastodon.social]

@futurebird Problem for whom? Other players, the DM, characters in the campaign?