What's your build?

What's your build?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Frog_and_the_Mouse
biblehub.com/revelation/16-13.htm
biblehub.com/revelation/16-14.htm
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scorpius
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Scorpion_and_the_Frog
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Lawful Neutral.

Lawful Evil masterrace

Neutral Good.

Good, but not goody two shoes or batman shit.

>dude chaotic is for le randumb normies, i'm cool and collected so lawful EVIL for me

This.

Lawful Neutral, with Good morality and Bad urges weighing against each other

Neutral characters are hard to play in most games you just end up as a good leaning character that steals alot of shit or something.

chaotic good. I'm going to troll for the lols

>Alien thats only motivation is reproducing
>neutral evil instead of true neutral

Nah, you just do what benefits you or fits in with whatever blue and orange morality you're rolling with.

the fuck aliens are evil dude

>viewing something without morality as evil
Doesn't work that way, if they can't understand it then they're Neutral.

I guess the average human is evil because he needs to kill and eat animals every day to live.

If i had been wronged in some way that impacted me heavily, chaotic evil. Otherwise probably neutral good.

...

Lawful Evil

I'm pretty sure Picard is lawful good. He's a good dude he just follows the laws and believes they are in the best interest of the people.

Anyway I usually go lawful neutral or neutral good.

he prioritizes laws over sentient well being, that's lawful neutral

Lawful good people don't break laws.

They do if the law is considered evil.

True Neutral

Nope. That's neutral good.

Can't be lawful good, if you obey evil laws.

>chaotic good is some bming retard
How is that different from chaotic evil?

law is about having a code and sticking to it, not necessarily obeying the laws of the land
good is about prioritizing others/all, evil is yourself/your tribe

>another thread where children argue about what alignment means
Fuck this gay earth

>a tyrant takes over the throne
>has a bunch of lawful good knights under his command
>makes a law ordaining all knights to go out to neighboring villages, slaughter everyone, especially the children, and bring back their flesh so that he can consume it
>the knights of course obey since they are lawful good

Lawful good people follow good laws. They don't just follow anything, because that would be lawful retarded.

chaotic good is a scrub, adhering to their own set of rules they make up outside of the game. most likely to call viable strategies "cheap" and get butthurt

chaotic evil just plays for lulz

You're a good person but you obey the laws. If you break the law you're not lawful. Lawful comes first then good. You try to change things from within.

The armory guy from the original deus ex is lawful good.

Now, the Scorpion in the Scorpion and the Frog is objectively from every standpoint Good, but is he Neutral, Lawful or Chaotic?

these rules are arbitrary, emotional, and change all the time (classic chaotic)

That's literally covered by neutral good and chaotic good. If you just pick and choose what laws you follow you're not lawful.

>Evil is yourself/your tribe
lib-cuck detected. That's why you sound so fucking retarded. Putting your family, Nation, & people first is good.

lawful evil

truest neutral, kills himself merely to fulfill his nature

culling outsiders is considered evil under pretty much every moral system, sorry the whole reich thing didn't work out

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Frog_and_the_Mouse
>The Frog is shown to attempt murder of unsuspecting animals for its own nefarious gain
biblehub.com/revelation/16-13.htm
biblehub.com/revelation/16-14.htm
>The Frog is symbolic of demonic impure spirits originating from false prophets and those opposed to God
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scorpius
>The Scorpion comes from the Gods, battling a Hunter who wishes to kill all animals for their own reputation and ego, and kills the Hunter at the cost of its own life
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Scorpion_and_the_Frog
>The Scorpion comes from a River Bank, tricking a Frog who wishes to kill animals for their own gain, and kills the Frog at the cost of its own life
>Due to propaganda and lies, the Scorpion is called a treacherous being by nature

>a being who only kills those that are evil at any cost including its own reputation and life as part of its nature is somehow evil
really makes you think

>aliens
>not being chaotic evil

All Violent murder beast are chaotic evil in dnd.

>Putting your family, Nation, & people first is good.
This, Evil is just serving your own desires and living for yourself. Can be expressed a lot of ways, but is pretty much this.

Have fun when a rapefugee gives you a brother

Lawful good are those that choose to obey a lawful good thing. This could a good code of ethics, a good god, a good king or something else. It does not mean you are a fucking cyborg that follows the law literally and always, otherwise it isn't good. You act as if "lawful" is the only part of "lawful good", you fucking simpleton.

Wouldnt Picard be more of a neutral good since he violated the prime directive several times in the name of helping the greater good? Someone like Riker would probably be the lawful neutral ones since he was never a fan of breaking the prime directive ever.

Preventing your people from being murdered, or your civilization over run by outsiders is in no way evil. People like you are literally a plague on civilization.

What if they're considered evil? Using retarded broad strokes like that makes your point lose all validity. It's like saying killing someone is always, undeniably, utterly wrong. (Spoiler: it's not.)

>>The Frog is symbolic of demonic impure spirits originating from false prophets and those opposed to God
wew
Prophetic as ever.

>>Due to propaganda and lies, the Scorpion is called a treacherous being by nature
that is not how the story goes, this post is fake news

Lawful, obviously.
A neutral scorpion would claim that it being polite and asking for a ride happened on one bank and must be balanced by a hostile sting on the other, then sting the frog on the other side.
A chaotic scorpion wouldn't sting the frog at all after arguing in circles about the nature of identity with the river before resorting to out of character personal attacks while the frog just wishes they would both shut the fuck up.

this.

Animals and shit don't have morality, they're just instinctual. Regardless of how that expresses itself and how we interpret that, they're inherently outside of morality.

>implying
The only fake news is that story's moral, the scorpion is but a wary sign to those that commit evil, knowing that justice will always come to those that wish to do evil no matter the cost.

>true neutral

Solitude is much more comfortable.

>A chaotic evil character does whatever his greed, hatred, and lust for destruction drive him to do. He is hot-tempered, vicious, arbitrarily violent, and unpredictable. If he is simply out for whatever he can get, he is ruthless and brutal.

>being "outside of morality" is'nt just a lack of morals

You could argue a sociopath is neutral with that same shit.

Formerly Chaotic Good

More recently Neutral Good, sometimes Lawful Evil when the stakes are high enough and order is the only thing that can be salvaged.

Animals aren't outside of it all due to them being definitively amoral, but due to them not being able to understand morals. The moment they can comprehend it, they're on the compass.

A sociopath isn't, as they understand morality.

Without the guiding voice of divinity, all events can only be judged by personal aesthetic notions rendering all such judgement subjective and all derived morality the same.

Good and evil are not philosophical concepts in the D&D game. They are the forces that define the cosmos.—D&D Player’s Handbook

Used to be lawful good. Nowadays I dance between Lawful Neutral and Lawful Evil, depending on who interprets it.

Not even trying to be 2edgy4u. Just tired of caring.

upvoted

self defense and defending the innocent is different from aggressing on outsiders and actively trying to exploit or destroy them, which is the ultimate conclusion to prioritizing yourself and your people over everyone else

that depends if you're referring to demons or some human ethnic group that isn't yours

Well then if animals can't be amoral, then is this asshole cleaner fish neutral? He keeps biting of the scum off fish instead of cleaning them.

Can he comprehend the idea of good and evil?

Always some form of good, because every evil in videogame moral system expects me to become an instant baby eater.

The other cleaning fish around him get pissed when he bites the scum instead of just settling for feeding since it scare off future fish "customers" and he does the same when other cleaning fish do.

.1 int problems

...

But is that an instinctual thing, driven by basic thought, or does it have higher level thinking, with the knowledge of how it's going to impact those around it and chooses to do it despite knowing it's wrong?

I like what this guy is getting at, but I don't think he makes the point quite right.

There's a copy pasta about how Paladins cannot be setup to fall, and they always make the best choice given circumstance, even if it's inaction.

Too many people think Lawful good is lawful stupid, and chaotic neutral is LOL SO RANDUM xD!

I am not a fish wizard.
Fish bites fish, pisses off its fish brethren
Same fish sees fish bite other fish like it did and gets pissed.

Is mortality not a simple drive of instincts to help one survive in society better?

Where would /our guy/ belong?

Neutral Gay

Morality is being able to overcome instincts and see things as good and evil. There's an undeniable aspect of instinct involved at its core, but morality is separate.

A tiger isn't evil for killing a human unprovoked, as it doesn't know better. But a human is evil for killing a tiger unprovoked, as it's operating off more than instinct.

lawul good one day then chaotic evil the next day

Probably True Neutral. Everything he's done is furthering his dream of having a kingdom, he doesn't care if he's good or evil.

chaotic good all the way

if anything should be chaotic neutral

That filth is not /ourguy/

I like to mix things up, but I'll usually pick one of these.

These.

>aggressing on outsiders and actively trying to exploit or destroy them, which is the ultimate conclusion to prioritizing yourself and your people over everyone else

helping those less fortunate is good, keeping to yourself and defending if necessary is neutral, being exploitive and genocidal is evil

deal with it Sup Forums

>keeping to yourself and defending if necessary is neutral
No, giving charity to africa has only increased their problems. instead of adapting they've become too dependent on the Wests handouts.
>being exploitative and genocidal is evil deal with it
Yeah. Israel, & the jew are evil. cuck.

>keeping to yourself and defending if necessary is also good
Everything else is correct.

However you did not prove that helping yourself and your people first and foremost leads invariably to exploiting and destroying outsiders.

This is where you made a stupid statement.

Not really. Ozymandias from Watchmen was hardly good. He did some awful, genocidal shit, but he did it "for the greater good", and to save the world, and his nation. In his eyes at least. He's not good. He's evil. Lawful evil. Most world leaders that have gone in history as war criminals were lawful evil, that would say (and some did) they did it for their country.

Neutral evil is the worst alignment in terms of evil, that's the selfish dick who doesn't give a fuck about anyone but himself and his material wealth or progress, no matter who needs to get fucked for him to get so.

Chaotic evil is a creature of impulse. He gets off on hurting others, and has only the basest instincts in mind. Sleep, eat, fuck, kill, shit. Not necessarily in that order.

>Yeah. Israel, & the jew are evil. cuck.
i don't even think you're from Sup Forums, go back to the_donald

>>keeping to yourself and defending if necessary is also good
no, that is neutral. not exploiting, not helping

>However you did not prove that helping yourself and your people first and foremost leads invariably to exploiting and destroying outsiders.
of course it does. if you *truly* cared about yourself and your people first you'd do whatever you could, fuck everyone else. it's the opposite of good, which is self-sacrificial

if you're not exploiting and destroying outsiders, you're at least neutral, because you care somewhat about their well-being

>saves the world
>is Evil

>not helping
It is helping. Just because they're familiar doesn't mean it isn't helping.

>of course it does. if you *truly* cared about yourself and your people first you'd do whatever you could, fuck everyone else. it's the opposite of good, which is self-sacrificial

>if you're not exploiting and destroying outsiders, you're at least neutral, because you care somewhat about their well-being
I refuse to believe you can make such a logically fallacious statement on accident.

>i don't even think you're from Sup Forums, go back to the_donald
I'm not from Sup Forums I'm from Sup Forums

If Alien Xenomorph is a bad example of Neutral Evil then what is a prime classic example?

Yes. You can be evil and still be a "hero". What exactly is the problem. It's the dilemma of would you kill one person to save a hundred, or a million to save a billion. Sure, you saved a billion of people, but that does not delete the fact that your actions fucking killed a million others.

Andrew Ryan from Bioshock, That House guy a post up from you, corrupt politicans that are on their function that know they could help but rather fill their own pockets and so on.

I'd kill a million to save a billion for days, given my people are safe.

Wouldn't Andrew Ryan be prime Chaotic due to his strong anarchism beliefs?

>sometimes Lawful Evil when the stakes are high enough and order is the only thing that can be salvaged.
i tip my fedora to you good sir

remember we are talking about d&d alignments here, which tries to place complex situations into 3 slots. i fail to see how
>others (altruistic, sacrificial) / balance / self (+ immediate self-interest, aka tribe)
isn't an accurate distillation

>It is helping. Just because they're familiar doesn't mean it isn't helping.
it's helping, but it isn't self-sacrificial, because it is part of your self-interest

>I refuse to believe you can make such a logically fallacious statement on accident.
i fail to see a fallacy. if you're prioritizing your own people, but also respecting rights of outsiders, that is neutral in the above system

i'd instead place him as lawful (evil) since he sticks to his objectivist code even in the face of obvious problems

And that makes you evil. On a pragmatic level it makes what you did reasonable and even "good", but it is evil. You destroyed a million lives, innocent ones, non innocent lives, and nothing can erase that.

Ryan was anything but anarchic. He peddled that ideology to the masses and maybe even believed it, but in the end, he wanted to be on the top of things that takes out those that are a threat or disagree with him and rule with an iron fist like every despot.

Only 3's Enclave has any interest establishing order in the Wasteland. 2's Enclave had their own agenda that went directly counter to every other faction's goals, lawful or chaotic. They're Neutral Evil.

The best game I ever played that has alignments in it was Neverwinter Nights 2. the game itself was shit for the most part, especially the npc AI, and the mapping, but when you talk to your party members, every party member shows a literal example of how to be the alignment that they represent.

>remember we are talking about d&d alignments here
This feels like a goalpost movement.

>it's helping, but it isn't self-sacrificial, because it is part of your self-interest
Good can actually be self interest motivated. Unless that's a rule of D&D alignments I'm not aware of.

The road to hell is paved in good intentions.

>i fail to see a fallacy.
You are stating that caring about yourself and your people first and foremost _will_ lead to hurting others and you use a no true scotsman to posit a situation where someone MAY hurt others which might correlate with but not be caused by the above moral standing. I don't even know where to start to pick apart how you can think that if you put your family and yourself first (priorities) that you will ALWAYS go out and kill others.

What if I killed 1 million people who were soon to die either by criminal death sentence or terminal disease that volunteered for me killing them after explaining the need?

Depends on the means. Are these people volunteering to donate their bodies to cancer research, or are you crushing them all up in a ball to shoot them at a meteor?

It was Voltaire who said, "every man is guilty of the good he does not do."

In a situation of not choosing to kill 1 million to save a billion, inaction is a choice. You are choosing to let die a billion for a million.

In this situation, either 1 million die, or 1 billion.