>Good: I will support this slave uprising and fight the masters because people deserve freedom.
>Evil: I will put an end to this slave rebellion because if order is not restored, chaos will be rampant.
>NOOTROLL: I WILL KILL HALF THE SLAVES AND HALF THE SLAVERS BECAUSE THAT'S THE MOST FAIR OPTION, PHEW, I'M GLAD I DIDN'T ACTUALLY HAVE TO MAKE A DECISION
This comic was better when it was about agnostics.
Never play The Witcher, it might hurt.
In that example neutral would be not getting involved.
But this is bait so who cares
lawful evil is literally the only way to play
>pick evil character
>still pick actually good options, even if they aren't rated as good in game
user wants to be evil but his morality won't let him
Bait thread that was also made yesterday but anyways...
>Good: What helps the majority against a minority. So most people see you as a "good" hero, minority excluded.
>Evil: What helps a minority that is against this majority. So only a minority see you a "good" hero while the rest see you as evil.
>Neutral: Doing what you feel it's right regardless of sides, depending on your needs you may be good today and evil tomorrow. Neutral is basically siding with yourself instead of a group.
It's as simple as that.
Please name at least 5 (five) games that do this, otherwise your argument has no ground to stand on.
Neutral is best because it requires nuanced decision making and not kneejerk stereotypical good and evil choices.
FUCK NEUTRALFAGS
PRAISE THE LAW
Heh
>if you kill him you will become just like him!
>mercykilling a doomed person in pain is an evil act
>locking up an evil guy somewhere where he's certain to suffer but never actually redeem himself is considered more good than outright killing him
Sounds like it's time to lead a reform of the criminal justice system
>option A: give your life savings to random bum
>option B: murder random bum and everyone in the area
>option C: I should go.
>this is how Amerilards actually view the world
What causes them to think like this? Is it partisanship?
i know it's old bait, but
playing neutral doesn't mean finding some bizarre neutral solution to each problem, it means sometimes you do the good thing and sometimes you do the bad thing. evaluating each scenario individually instead of always just doing the bad thing because you decided to play as a bad guy (which is fun too)
Everyone knows that. But finding good solutions is hard work and it's easier to be an extremist in any area.
A vote for neutral is a vote for evil.
>I'll save the trapped family down in the crypt from the flesh eating ghouls.
>I'll leave the family to their fate, but kill the terrorists who locked them down there to begin with for my reward.
>I'll let them go. I'm siding with the elves in their fight against the humans here.
>NOT MY BUSINESS I'M NOOTROLL
>Good Choice: Join God and kick Satan's Ass
>Bad Choice: Join Satan and kick God's ass
>Neutal Choice: Tell both to fuck off and finish doing your job
>The Evil options are actually the Good ones
Lawful Neutral is best.
Chaotic Neutral can be okay too, like good personifications of war or chaos, but unfortunately lolsorandumb also falls into this category
true neutral is BS though
It's the old D&D alignment problem and how Neutral was described in one edition.
>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.
Neutral description here explains it best.
>Not playing a neutral character who will routinely switch between good and evil acts depending on what benefits him the most at any given time
This shit pissed me off in Fable 3
>take the pragmatic option that mandates temporary hardship in order to save countless lives, even if it ruins your reputation forever
>evil
>pull the wool over your citizen's eyes and fluff them up with trivial niceties so that they like you while an unstoppable evil comes to slaughter all of them
>good
To do that you'd need to get away from a single axis.
Good/Evil points are a shitty way of doing it. Everyone has a different morality on what could be considered good or evil on particularly grey acts. Like if it's moral to kill someone to save another person. In ME this would probably be considered a renegade action.
playing neutral in any capacity is severely limiting because, at its laziest, you have to balance between two options. I'd say lawful evil is the best if you have some half-decent creed you live by because you're capable of good, evil and neutral acts WHILE usually being self-serving which fits RPG characters in general.
Most people seem to fall into either True Neutral(Apathetic) or Evil Neutral.
why is there such a concentration of indecisive retards on Sup Forums especially?
people tend to forget D&D alignments work for D&D when you have absolute good and absolute evil, as well as everything in-between as defined by absolutes in terms of various planes of reality, spell requirements, etc. you cannot really apply it to other settings or real life by simplification.
>you can only hold convictions if they're left or right
>implying apathetic true neutral fucking exists
>"if you are not with us you are against us"
you do know that you are fucking crazy, right?
>literally needing to complain because people's convictions don't fall into catagories you've already got easy ways to dismiss, because you can't argue your points and only know how to argue against entire positions
How pathetic do you have to be to say shit like this unironically?
Literally most people.
Help friends for free, make others pay - use law when it helps, bend it when it doesn't.
Best neutral routes.
Your career says, Don't get involved. Your master says, Don't get involved. Your brothers say, Don't get involved. Your lovers say, Don't get involved.
So Geralt has every reason to sit back and watch things unfold in a true neutral stance. He just rarely, if ever, actually does that.
>Side A wants to kill 100 kittens
>Side B wants to kill 100 puppies
>Side C likes kittens and puppies
I guess you have to stick with one side no matter how retarded their argument is
What point are you trying to make here, OP? That alignment systems in most games are under-developed and atrophied, with no room for nuance, or even a reasonable-sounding middle ground?
Newsflash: Literally everyone on Sup Forums knows.
Better idea: Why don't we try to come up with some better ways to handle morality measurement in video games?
>How pathetic do you have to be to say shit like this unironically?
This is the way of the brainlet. They view the world through neat categories so they don't have to think. See
>shitty strawman
Great thread, OP
>Sup Forums retard getting btfo
This way of thinking about alignment falls apart under any of many examples of villains who act out of what they think is best for others.
That's how life works, buddy
you either join a side or you are a disgusting parasite who sides with a random side at the end
people want to get rid of centrist retards for a reason
You're a millenial who cannot live without adopting labels because it would be tantamount to admitting you have no personal substance.
Morality beyond Black and White is really fucking hard for video games because you need to think out a ton of different scenarios beyond 2 or 3, which is a lot of work as it is.
Normies are retarded, old news.
>le boogieman generation
The atheist is right in this example, though
>I am an extreme tribalist chimpansee because in my country you can only realistically vote for 2 parties.
AMEEERIKAAAAA!
YOU ES AYE, YOU ES AYE!
LAND OF THE BRAVE AND FREEE!
You're right, you could also be older and regressive, but I was being charitable. And we both know the fact of it. That's something that hasn't changed in any generation; kids always think it's not transparent they're kids.
>Atheist is blatantly right but still unattractive, disliked and mocked.
Appropriate.
>game intentionally has morally ambiguous decisions
>still get morality points depending on your choice
What a suprise.
The joke is that people hate it when others are being realistic.
Why is Sup Forums so completely obsessed with shaming centrists?
You do see the hypocrisy here, right?
People want to get rid of centrists because they fly in the face of the retarded "Us vs. Them" narrative everyone is so desperate to push
Because Geralt is obviously not neutral, Witchers as a profession are. Even people in the setting tend to conflate the two.
The stupidest thing is that in-story your policies don't even change afterwards. You just let everyone suffer forever. What the fuck?
I think the whole argument is that theist and agnostic didn't trust their human senses to tell the ultimate truth about the box.
Well, there's nothing incorrect about that from an ethical standpoint. The game devs/writers are empirically God over their world, and thus morality derives from them.
>That's how life works, buddy
>people want to get rid of centrist retards
Do you genuinely fucking believe this? Try interacting with actual people outside of Sup Forums for once.
Heartly kek'd
Because they actually have to think of new reasons to call centrists bad so that they can instantly ignore them for being different.
Applying labels =/= adopting labels. But that's another problem with your generation, you homogenize language. Learn to read nuance.
But there is space in the box
Because they can't easily dismiss them like they can the left. Their entire counter-argument any time you point out how any of their shit is blatantly retarded is to complain about leftists, spam images of the most cringeworthy leftists they can find, etc. Not being able to do this naturally upsets them.
granted, in modern political discourse a lot of """centrists""" i find are just partisans who hate the most extreme elements on their parties.
like conservatives who vote repub every election but call themselves centrists cause they hate nazis. or liberals who vote dem every election but call themselves centrists cause they hate commies.
so they can brainwash them into joining their side
If they hate commies why do they vote dem?
The fact that your retarded ass has to keep spamming this shit proves you're a bigger sperg than the 'neutralroute-boogeyman' you're so afraid of.
The reason you don't see neutral players make autistic images like this is and post it all the time is because they're busy playing video games while you scream out your asshole.
Really activates the almonds.
Because Sup Forums's like highschool. If you don't try your hardest to fit in with the loudest of kids and imitate them, you might get ignored. Nobody lets them sit at their table in school, so they start adopting retarded opinions online because they feel like they belong somewhere.
>dems
>not just another flavor of conservatism
wew lad
What if sides of box are just a projection?
What if there is a deadly virus inside the box?
What if there is air inside the box?
Just because its transparent doesn't mean its empty.
Game Geralt is definitely not neutral.
>Picking a side
Instead of taking the side of the living, you should take the side of the dying.
>God is morally correct
>He made me, a thinking, sentient being and then told me I cant think differently then him.
>If you do think differently then me you go to hell and suffer with no chance of redemption because that is an ethical thing to do for some reason, I made you I can do what ever I want with you. lol
>american political discourse
>GUD: REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE STOP CHOOSING NEUTRAL!!!
>BED: REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE STOP CHOOSING NEUTRAL!!!
>Neutral: *Plays videogames*
True strength is righteousness and compassion. These are the things that make us human, that make life worth living. Neutrality is just a lack of courage, and evil a deficit of hope.
>responsibally
then =/= than better luck next time buddy
>Be the created being
>Live in a fallen world that has deviated from God's original will for it
>Think for even one second that you as a speck in the cosmos could possibly have better grasp on morality and how things should be then your omnipotent and omnipresent Creator
Hmm
Because Sup Forums's argument rely on memetic shaming like
>she lost get over it
When those don't work, it's obvious that Sup Forums is a bunch of SJWs of the right.
What buttflustered lawful dumb said that, I want to know.
>thinking you know what your Creator's will is
>Neutral: I'll keep out of it. That way, whichever side has the support of the populace is likely to win, resulting in more long-term stability. Besides, it's none of my business.
shitty shitpost thread is shit
Even just some neutral alignment choices at ALL would be nice... Especially when you don't want to commit to one ideology or the other, but all the good gear is morality-locked. Lookin' at you, SW:tOR.
How about rather than a sliding scale, it's three independent scales for 'Moral' 'Self-interest' and 'Immoral'. If you choose to free the slaves for no reason other than it being the right thing to do, or randomly come across them, do it and then later ask for nothing when you stumble over their home, moral points. If you free them, but ask for pay, less moral points and depending on how much you sting them for, some self-interest points. On the other hand, if you offer to tell the slavers where the survivors of their raid are, you get immoral points and depending on the payoff you ask, self-interest too. If you sell the location of the survivors, then later free them and demand payment BOTH times, MAD self-interest and a small amount of immorality because fuck you dude.
Then just graduate those scales into tiers, so you're not 'good' or 'evil', but varying degrees of saintly or jerkish.
Just spitballing here.
Did you help the squirrels escape the bank or did you kill them?
>everything we know about what the creator wants we learned from the Jews
>everything we did for the last 2000 years had benefited Jews in one way or another. Save for rare occasions when we acted directly against it (Holocaust, pogroms)
>this is not suspicious in any way
Well the best thing we have is that old ancient text that hurts your feelings so much, so that's what I follow. I don't know why faith is such a hard concept for some people, do you really just HAVE to know everything on a complete and observable basis? Seems like a fruitless way to live, but that's just me
Why is neutral always "I can't pick a side" to you and never "both sides suck so I pick none" which it actually is
>I am a christian and so scared of other world views that I will just focus on grammar instead.
>If you dont listen to the creator the worlds gonna be bad yo!
The Quran isn't THAT ancient, user
In addition:
>in recent times some people stopped trusting this dogma and adopted another: Marxism
>which was also created by Jews
>this is also not suspicious
>do not trust your senses, we Jews know better what's best for you!
The Bible itself says that the Jews have strayed and turned God away and thus salvation at the time of Jesus was extended to the gentiles, now the whole world has entered a period of grace and the Jews will not actually be brought back to God until the battle of Ezekiel in prophecy. I don't think some grand Jewish plot would incorporate that detail
Feels vs reals pumpkin
>OVA
>morning TV timestamp edited on
For what purpose
Fuck off, stormfags.
because you are losing out on content
Most games with alignment systems are terrible dogshit and you picked probably the worst examples.