What games have the best morality system?

why do you feel the need to ask this?

Twist and reusing the bread clip is how anyone with over room temperature IQ does it.

No, you're better off twisting and tucking.

>most of American schools are on Spring Break this week

Well that explains it.

It’s usually worse, but that’s because /pol/kiddies are still in school and Aussies/Kiwis got their shitposting pass revoked.

one of the biggest emems in life bro

The boxes are more about keeping the bread from getting mashed. Combine them with the twist&tuck for optimal preservation.

This

I kinda like chaos and law, but that might be because I learned about it just recently with SMT games

this image is wrong

true neutral should be twist and tuck
chaotic neutral should be just tuck
neutral evil should be leaving the bag open
chaotic evil should be putting it in the fridge

Twist and tuck here to say, chaotic neutral is the way

Unironically shit like Eve online. Player enforced morality is the only real morality

Fallout 4. If you want to be forced into being a goody goody fuckstick, that is.

I'm chaotic evil according to this. Sometimes chaotic neutral. Then again I usually eat half a loaf a bread per day, so a loaf lasts 2 days.

deus ex

pre-sliced bread is evil in general

Morality systems in a majority of games are flawed because they try to tie major ethical decisions to a linear, single axis scale, which almost universally turns every choice into a brainlet tier "do nice thing or do mean thing".
The only way to create a game with compelling moral choices is to stop trying to measure how "good" or "evil" the player is. If you want to tie consequences to their choices, a reputation system is far better anyway.

Attached: Alignments in Touhou final bosses.jpg (2250x1860, 3.28M)

Do you live outside in the snow or some shit? Bugs will crawl on that shit.

never had an issue with bugs on my bread

That you know of

I usually don't take part in shilling other nations but holy fuck US bread is disgusting pulp. I understand you have more people to feed etc but if you have any income please, buy real bread and not this shit.

>Not putting the bread in the fridge
Retards. The lot of you.

Attached: 1539697589728.png (367x337, 306K)

Alpha Protocol had a really good one.

I do this, tie and tuck, and knotting.

Attached: 1398304901531.png (1500x1500, 183K)

>Lawful good characters do not follow the laws of man, they follow the laws of goodness
Uhh, wouldn't that be chaotic good?

>knotting

Why do you get your dog to fuck your bread

>morality is based not only on dialogue choices but also your actions
>dialogue options open up depending on who your character is as a person, with unique Origin character campaigns for 6 characters
>karma is an invisible statistic, you make choices based off your own morality or the character you’re roleplaying
>only in the midgame or even lategame can you accumulate enough negative or positive karma to unlock the [Hero] and [Villain] tags
>you can be a hero and villain simultaneously
Best game I’ve played in years quite honestly

Attached: F967EA4C-CDDB-4C53-92BB-B13C45352C96.png (940x528, 1M)

>someone actually made this
>and was so wrong in arranging those images it hurts
double embarrassing.

I don't buy bread anymore, but I used to twist, bag clip and then tuck.

Slang can be weird sometimes. Never had a dog though. Just a tortoise, a hamster, and countless fish.

>knotting
You see you had me till then. Knotting doesn't make it any more air tight mother fucker. You just can't get into it as easily.

Attached: 1552881612282.png (224x229, 12K)

I believe the point that was trying to be made there was that just because something is 'the law' does not mean that a lawful good character will immediately believe in and uphold that law. If, for example, a tyrant decreed that all firstborn children were to be slaughtered in his name, a LG character would be totally capable of saying 'nah fuck that' and opposing the tyrant.

The difference between LG and CG here is how each would try and stop the tyrant. A LG character would try to find a way to dethrone the tyrant through laws of succession or rules of impeachment while a CG character would be more likely to stage a violent coup or assassination.

that's knot true though

Read the next line dumbass.

I get that. It seems like it's ascribing two different traits to one character though. Lawful good characters follow the law, if they don't follow the law, that doesn't mean they aren't good, just that they would fall into a different good category.

What would be someone who eats the outer pieces first just so the inside pieces get exposed to air no matter what you do?

Lawful is more about following a code, seeking honor, and upholding virtuous laws and traditions than it is about literally following laws.
A lawful good character can break laws if they are in opposition with the system upholding them ethically, though their nature dictates that such things should be avoided if possible.

One can disagree with a law and try to have it changed lawfully, or unlawfully. If you feel that blacks are being discriminated against by your government, you can write letters to your congressman, run for political office yourself, start petitions, etc... or you can start chimping out, setting cop cars on fire and looting.

LG Characters operate within the laws to make the world a better place, but they are not slaves to those laws and will do their best to change/abolish them if they are unjust.

So they only follow the law if they agree with it? Then they just so happen to have the same preferences as the law. Neutral good people and many chaotic good people don't break the law "just because," they break them to accomplish their goals if need be. So I think the person described in Lawful good would fall into one of these categories.

No you dumb homo tool, law is not literal law.

Chaotic is "the end justify the means" regardless if they want good is evil. Lawful just means they have a code of honour to go by.

>If you feel that blacks are being discriminated against by your government, you can write letters to your congressman, run for political office yourself, start petitions, etc... or you can start chimping out, setting cop cars on fire and looting.

That definitely makes sense, but not all laws or systems of government can be repealed like that. Some require breaking the laws of the land, which would more accurately describe a neutral good or chaotic good.

>code of honor
This doesn't make sense. Everyone has a code of honour, it's just that some people's are sparse or empty. It's arbitrary. Following the law isn't so arbitrary, we can actually define categories based on the laws of the land.

>follows practically all laws - lawful good
>follows some laws - neutral good
>follows few to no laws - chaotic good

Meanwhile, under code of honor:
>code of honor is very... good - lawful good
>code of honor is less good - neutral good
>code of honor is very sparse or empty - chaotic neutral

The code of honor shit has more arbitrary categories.

A lawful character is no more obligated to obey a bad law than a chaotic character is to break a good one.

What's wrong with the knot method?

The best morality system is lack of morality system
No blue/red bars telling you if your decision was right or wrong, you just decide and have to live with consequences

This. And not only is there an infinite spectrum of categories we could create based on most moralities, but morality itself is subjective.

Honestly, I would be fine with the classic morality systems if at least they made sense and you had to live with the consequences.
But no, you can act like a cunt for 90% of the game and still be considered a saint who dindu nuffing and keep having access to the gud boi options like a true schizo.