Which alignment do you usually play as in RPG games?

Spotted the illiterate barbarian/sorc player

either neutral good or chaotic good

LG's about a code. Think Batman
>Killing is wrong, even if it's someone evil
Chaotic good is more of an ends justify the means approach.

>getting mad at a fucking gradient

Chaotic good. Lawful alignments just don't suit my personality.

Attached: Untitled.png (800x479, 36K)

Anyone who loots corpses for their armor and/or items is Chaotic in nature

That's just game mechanic.

Chaotic Neutral are chads
Chaotic Good are cucks

Neutral good has always been my favorite alignment. It's altruistic and doesn't adhere too closely to the law, but also doesn't paint you as viva la resistance and doing literally anything to help people.

Chaotic Neutral are normies
Chaotic Good are cucks
True Neutral are retards

Attached: 1557524482887.jpg (285x384, 43K)

Lawful Evil

Attached: semenextractors.jpg (2000x1400, 463K)

Same, but I'm more neutral than good.

Source on this, bro?

A virtue signaling psychopath. I'll do immoral actions for reward if the game can't detect it.

games are garbage and end up in chaotic neutral unless we are talking boomer crpgs

This alignment system sucks ASS. It's too rigid.

Chaotic Good/Neutral/Evil are the true edgelords

>chaotic neutrals are spineless
>can basically do whatever they want and couldn't give a shit about anything else other than themselves
admit it, you despise true freedom

ミヤサカタカジ

Veganism means I can't be anything but good, but I'm not sure if it's more chaotic because it dismantles the established idea that slavery and murder is OK if your victim is of different species, or more lawful because it's about establishing a moral system and the "rebellion" is only there because the current system is immoral.

Therefore Neutral Good sounds like it fits the most.
As a bonus, it lets me be a druid, which fits for obvious reasons.

Attached: 1484538579386.jpg (1280x1280, 279K)

CN is the most brainlet alignment. People just play it to do as they please without being labeled as evil.

fuck yeah thanks

>chaotic neutrals aren't spineless
>proceeds to define being spineless

Lawful Neutral. Kind to my friends, true to my word, but merciless towards my enemies. Fully prepared to sacrifice the wants of the few for the needs of the many.

Attached: randleman suplex fedor.gif (340x235, 1.99M)

>veganism
>good
That's chaotic neutral at best. Veganism's inherent cult-like values makes it gravitate more towards evil.

>being a chaotic edgelord
>being literally evil
LG master race

>I hate good people so much that I must cope by calling them evil and turning them into a cult
That's pretty horrible, you should stop doing this

extreme chaotic good

Alignments are cool and everything, but it's annoying when it becomes this dick measuring contest and everyone goes apeshit about it. That's why playing Lawful Good or Chaotic Evil is lame.
>be Chaotic evil
>"dude why aren't you being a random psychopath edgelord right now??"
I usually just stick with Neutral-types for more freedom.

True neutral is fucking retarded. Do games even use this system to good effect? I've played icewind dale a bit and I've yet to notice it's influence on gameplay.

lawful evil probably wouldn't be that great to play if it were done well. you'd just delegate shit to keep your hands clean

Anyone who has ever played DnD knows that alignment is only invitation for pointless semantic wars and is too restrictive.

Attached: digusted ai.png (408x510, 303K)

>good people
Nigger i don't know what the fuck your refusal to adhere to your natural diet has done to your brain, but if you think people who ruin other peoples lives over wearing an already dead animal's pelt makes them "good" then you are legitimitately just straight evil, rather than slightly because i gave you the benefit of doubt that you were actually just a misguided idiot.

Batman is chaotic good. Superman is lawful good.

I usually try to play True Neutral, yet somehow eventually I end up as Neutral Good. Guess I'm a big softie.

Lawful Evil, like the truest of chads.

Attached: 1528683866300.jpg (1240x1754, 265K)

Batman has a strict code of honor, so you could also count him as lawful.
this is why alignment is retarded

Whichever gets me unique loot

Depends on the game.
I'm almost always Lawful, but if Evil's written properly I'll do that. You know, the type of emotional manipulation, turning people to your side, making it so people don't really have a choice, kind of evil.
Most of the time Evil is just horseshit like killing and robbing people for short-term gain or sometimes for no gain at all, i.e. stupid evil, and fuck that. I go with Good in that case.

Not necessarily, lawful doesn't mean purely "the laws of government/land" but can mean even a personal code of conduct that they will always abide by. A ronin could be seen as lawful evil, or at more extreme lengths you could say that Satan is lawful evil.

What the fuck are you even talking about?
You somehow managed to turn respecting others' lives into a persecution complex for yourself.

Vegans aren't anything like anti-choice loons who persecute women for controlling their bodies.

But he breaks established laws on a daily basis. He's a vigilante that gives no fucks about any laws but his own. That inherently forbids him from being lawful.

Lawful Good. Guess Dad was on to something after all.

Attached: 03Teaser-Briton.png (645x810, 669K)

Neutral or Chaotic Good.

Lucifer had to rebel against his own internal morals, because as an Angel he is made from the word of God and had to turn against himself to turn against God. That makes him Chaotic.
As for the Good/Evil axis you could swing it either way. He DID give Mankind the gift of knowledge, and one could argue the banishment from the garden wasn't the fault of his deception but God's ruthlessness.
On the other hand, he also tricked Eve into being a thot, and good guys don't encourage thots.
I'd go Chaotic Neutral for Lucifer.

You're someone who has only recently gotten into veganism then, or you're not socializing with other vegans. You'll see it eventually though, it's not what you want it to be.

Most can get chaotic evil right either.
Like why the fuck would you accept someone who does pic related in your group?
Even as someone who plays chaotic evil, I would hate them, because you can't leech on leeches.

Attached: iu.jpg (600x500, 65K)

i think honor and dishonor would communicate the alignment system in d&d better than law and chaos

Maybe i meant more just types of "devils" then. Offering deals for souls and shit.

Chaotic evil. I come first, I don‘t even know if anyone else is a sentient being.

From a gameplay perspective, I could see how it is appealing. From a roleplay perspective, I'm not sure who this describes. Assuming we're talking about sane characters with a sense of morality and not completely crazy lunatics, CN are just extremely self-centered? but then they surely lean towards good or evil anyway.

>all these good virgins itt

Lawful Evil all the way.

Anyone who has ever played D&D knows that _D&D_ is only for pointless semantic wars.
I get the joy of roleplaying in theory, but in practice you're trying to run an entire fictional universe's narrative laws in 1 human mind. There are errors and inconsistencies; they compound.
And they always tend to err on the side of the DM's friends, for some reason. Can't stand that shit, when the rules change depending on who they apply to.

>good people
that's the main problem with the majority of vegans, they act like goody two-shoes and will berate anyone who doesn't agree with them at worst, or look down on them at best. we already know animals feel pain and have emotions but they humanize them too much by considering them as sentient and thinking beings like humans, and insist that eating their meat is a criminal act, nevermind the fact that in order for other living beings to survive, an organism needs to die. death feeds life, it's always been like this, this is how animals, vegetals and insects have survived until now, the best we can do about animals, right now, is killing them painlessly

Or maybe you just interpret everything through a massive confirmation bias, like with that "vegans tell everybody they're vegan" meme, which only happens ironically and on the internet.
>it's not what you want it to be
Of course it isn't, but it's also much better than what you want to believe it is.

Mephistopheles is classic Lawful Evil yes.
The real puzzle is figuring out Faust's alignment.

It works fine in DnD (though can be restricting at times), I hate the extension of it past that though.

I really don't know
it is a really big toss-up between neutral good and lawful good
I think I favor neutral good, though, more
neutral good fighter is my most played archetype in anything

Attached: 1553326648645.jpg (750x747, 149K)

It's meant to be that
You are meant to have one dimensional characters
It's suppose to be outrageously stupid and not realistic

both of these

>the best we can do about animals, right now, is killing them painlessly
That's obviously pure bullshit.
The best we can do about animals is not breeding them into slavery.
No matter how many excuses you find, the fact remains: you don't need to eat meat, milk or eggs if you live in first world. Not to survive, not to stay healthy.

You're supporting slavery for convenience or even just hedonistic pleasure.
When this slavery involves factory farming, you have to be deranged not to realize it's abuse. And if you aren't checking if the corpses/milk/eggs come from free range, you're supporting this inexcusable heinous shit.

I support slavery for humans too so it's ok

Chaotic good

Here is the actual official ranking

Attached: 1557137451247.png (2700x2160, 1.31M)

Could you please stop argue about vegan bullshit in this thread, please?

Buddy, they're animals, not people.
There you go again, portraying human emotions and thought patterns on creatures that can not comprehend them. They live meal to meal, they don't care about "slavery" or any of this dogshit you're spouting.

The vegan kryptonite: the edgelord who doesn't care that he's vile

>Buddy, they're niggers, not people.
>Buddy, they're jews, not people.
>Buddy, they're slavs, not people.

Animals can‘t be enslaved because they have no cause to exist except to reproduce, which we are helping them do. It doesn‘t matter if it hurts or looks gross.

cringe

I do the neutral spectrum because whether I’m good or evil I’m always a self serving bastard first and foremost.

good bait, genuinely excited to see how many people you catch

Attached: a.png (170x237, 88K)

Wojaks aren't funny.

>Animals can‘t be enslaved because they have no cause to exist except to reproduce
Funny considering there are plenty of shitters on Yea Forums who genuinely believe reproduction is the only goal of a human.

if you consider raising animals to harvest their meat slavery, what the fuck do you want to do with animals which have been conditioned to live with humans in an almost symbiotic relationship? if you want to "free" these "slaves" and release them in the wild, you're going to let them be murdered by predators, they are very likely not going to know how to defend themselves against them

In order to be enslaved you have to have a concept of freedom. Put food and drink in front of a cow and it will never leave. You could put a hole in its chest, kidnap it’s young, kill one violently while the others watch and the cow will simply eat.

>neutral good fighter
Based. The only martial equally as based is a lawful good paladin.

Humans can decide to do something more, and animals can‘t. I can strive to 100% Lego Star Wars the Complete Saga, but my dog just eats food and follows me around because I had his balls chopped off. He will never do anything that he‘s aware will diminish his lifespan or chance of finding a mate.

Usually either Lawful or Neutral Evil

>if you want to "free" these "slaves" and release them in the wild
Don't breed more
This sentence kills the meatard
In b4
>but what about those who live right now? we must do something with them so we must breed more of them, there is no way to not breed them

lawful good is the chad choice. kill all evils kill all chaotics and whip the butts of neutrals into law and good.

Attached: 1519211050001.jpg (1280x720, 90K)

You are like the jedi order and your failure to adapt and evolve shall be your downfall
jelly of your smites and holy power tho

Post your custom minifig, user.

Agreed. People should be able to choose an alignment for some flavor if they want, but in no way should it dictate 100% the exact decisions they would make in every situation. It's lame when you personally want to do something, but "can't" because your character is X alignment. Sometimes that sort of roleplaying can be fun, but it also can be boring. Or if your character is chaotic evil, but didn't slit an innocent man's throat and steal his gold in a particular moment, that means you aren't playing your character right or something.

>lawful good automatically means you have to be a paladin
ree

Scumbag character alignment

>soldiers request help for a skirmish
>show up for the battle choose to sit idly by and watch the fight
>once both parties are low on numbers, kill both parties
>loot everyone

>Don't breed more
you're right, we'll let them live peacefully in the wild and let them reproduce, so when the season of hunting comes by, we'll track them and put them down just like we'd do with stags, it'll be much more entertaining to gather our food this way

Actually, scratch that, they’re pretty good. Wojaks are kinda hilarious desu haha

I like to play the lawful neutral Merc that doesn't ask questions

Do you think there's actual wisdom in this quote
I think about it from time to time

Attached: jsc.png (500x422, 80K)

Lawful Neutral/Evil.

Attached: 2a2a0g.jpg (640x480, 33K)

Chaotic Good.
I enjoy helping people out, but I will do whatever I wish along the way.

Lawful good is utterly retarded. If you're going to be good, neutral or chaotic is the only way to go

Attached: rali.jpg (2250x1800, 897K)

Lawful good, the best alignment.

I doubt alignments are even restrictive in D&D context in the first place. Surely there are plenty of Lawful/Neutral Evil characters who have loved ones or can show compassion at times.

Thats not chaotic good

we got a live one here jim *smites you*

Neutral or, as I like to call it, TRUE Good is the best. Recognize the pragmatism of the law, but have the courage to disobey when nobody else will. That's how a real hero rolls.

Usually lawful good, I consider the murder of elves, mages and heretics as "good"

Based Templar putting down the magie wagies

This. Lawful will force you to perform evil, and chaotic will inevitably cause evil

>subtle red pill

Batman is more of a stickler for his laws than Supes with his American Can-do-ism. Flouting local laws doesn't matter if he has a strict internal ruleset, a paladin disobeying local orders to follow his code is more of a paladin than one that would betray his oath for some customs bullshit.

Batman follows his "become a bat" credo to the T, sometimes to the jeopardy of others, and recruits other people to follow his code of law, he's lawful good.

What's Griffith's alignment?

Attached: 1389340221810.jpg (712x216, 47K)

Then what is chaotic good you cock guzzler?

If the law is inherently evil and doesn't exist to better society you are allowed to disobey it, even as lawful good. Actually, if you let it slide without doing anything about it, you contradict your alignment

Neutral evil, baby. Looking out for number one and number one only.

Attached: 1551852496731.jpg (576x1024, 114K)

Shouldn't a hero be neutral good?

Lawful Neutral

Chaotic neutral. He’s willing to do anything, good or bad for his dream.

Following your OWN rules means you follow no rules. Why is that so hard to understand?
In order for a lawful evil character to exist, there must be some kind of evil God, or some set of rules to follow. Or, if you want to be realistic but boring, someone making use of legal blanks for his own benefit would count as LE.

>murder
I prefer calling it 'population control' in the case of elves, 'aggressive reeducation' in the case of mages and 'life denial' in the case of heretics. Because murder is a crime, and I wouldn't want anyone thinking something preposterous like me breaking the law after all.

Depends on the type of hero

anyone describing themselves as chaotic is lawful. chaos cannot be categorized. you cannot be systematically chaotic.

Attached: 1543051237653.jpg (1200x1200, 268K)

No. In D&D if you're evil you are super retardedly evil at all costs. They wake up every morning and are like "Oh another beautiful day! Can't wait to murder more innocents because i'm evil!"
It's why there was the whole orc baby problem, in which you're tasked with clearning out a camp of orcs, they are classified as evil meaning they are born evil and commit evil acts. The orc women and children are evil and the children too will eventually grow up to commit evil acts, do you spare the orc babies or kill them?
This usually ends with paladin players leaving the group.

that's not what chaotic means in the context of dnd alignments

Are you more lawful or more good?

I try to do a good playthrough on the first run through, but if the game allows me to be evil I push the limits of the game the second time around.

>Following your OWN rules means you follow no rules
Retard.

I always start out chaotic good but I always end chaotic evil

Lawful Evil is a hard and ambitious life. Lawyers and Politicians work SO hard...

>This usually ends with paladin players leaving the group.
Meanwhile fighter characters

Attached: gs.jpg (181x279, 14K)

In my experience, Chaotic Neutral is shorthand for "I'm going to play Chaotic Evil, and get upset and argue when being an evil asshole has consequences".

>Lawyers and Politicians
>Lawful
kek

>This usually ends with paladin players leaving the group.
Shit paladins, a real one would purge them all without feeling remorse or joy over it, besides the joy he gets from following their oaths and vows.

This is a catch-22.
>anyone describing themselves as insane clearly cannot be insane
Its incorrect.

Just as in real life, chaotic good.

Attached: 1555527260807.gif (335x237, 1.81M)

omg~ Joseph Gorgeous Loveitt

No it's "the asshole DM has banned evil characters because he is a cuck so I will just pick the next best thing"

So any gods worshiped by those of of Lawful alignment are Chaotic or Neutral, because they created their own ruleset?

Agree, you either have the extreme paladin that would smite them all or have the extreme merciful one that will bite them in the ass later

The act of killing an infant isn't evil to you? It's a philosphical problem, there isn't a correct answer.

Chaotic Neutral.

Attached: 1557743092871.png (333x209, 28K)

It's pretty restrictive when it comes to good and evil. The reality is that like 99.9% of human beings would fall under some kind of neutrality, just like animals do. Generally self-serving, but it's also in your best interest to get along with people. A neutral person tends to prefer good because it makes their life easier, but will do what they feel they have to when it comes down to it. Good and Evil by D&D standards are essentially on the level of superheroes/villains. Paragons of good/evil.

Just jumping into your conversation from the front page. Would that mean someone like Judge Dredd would be Lawful neutral? Doesn't give a shit about good and evil, just the LAW.

Attached: Judge Dredd smiles approvingly.jpg (774x1032, 173K)

Batman has been just about every alignment barring, maybe, chaotic evil.

As Batman has varied quite dramatically over the years.

He's a massive egoist who doesn't care who or what gets destroyed or hurt, as long as it serves his goal.

Somewhere between true neutral and neutral evil probably.

Judge Dredd is actually compared to lawful neutral a lot and I agree
But he also shifts into neutral good and lawful good at points but that's more about alignments being restrictive but for the most part he is lawful neutral and doesn't give a shit about your situation which is why we love him

other way around. lawful neutral is THE judge dredd of alignments.

Attached: batman-jekyll-hyde-chocolate-display.jpg (1400x700, 214K)

If the Gods follow the rules they created and those are followed by others in an established manner, then they can be considered as Lawful. Rules aren't of the creators, but of the followers. What is the point of a law only you follow? can it even be called a law or a rule? it's bullshit

St. Cuthbert would likely approve.

Evil maybe, but without a doubt lawful.

neutral good

I would also say chaotic good at points.
It seems like for Dredd he is lawful neutral until the law fails

>It seems like for Dredd he is lawful neutral until the law fails
That's how I would describe it too

Evil Good

based, why would I larp as some faggot lawful alignment if I can just be chadotic good

If a law you follow doesn't bend to your urges, you're lawful, doesn't matter if you have followers or if you're a skeptic monk living under a bridge.

Neutral, usually good. Evil almost always has shittier rewards and makes all of the NPCs treat you like shit. Fuck that, stroke my ego and tell me what a good boy I am. Just don't require I get shit done in any sort of specific way. I might follow "da rules", or I might not. Also don't ask me to think too much about what good or evil even is, no one who's aligned good is capable of that kind of thought.

following a law is an urge
there is no such thing as a "personal law"

Neutral-chaotic neutral, call me spineless. I'm just chasing my well deserved dopamine high.

NPC detected.

Chaotic Good usually

>there is no such thing as a "personal law"
What is "no fat chicks" then?

I almost always play some kind of chaotic neutral character. I see no point in being good when it's not beneficial to me, but I won't go out of my way to hurt people, either. I'm basically a philosophical egoist IRL.

The exception to this is the Ultima series, where you actually feel like you're a hero and being a deus vult champion of virtues was fun as hell.

Attached: ultima 6.jpg (800x1155, 200K)

Instinct
Common sense

Generally speaking my first play through of a game I tend to play as me. So I would fall into Neutral Good, and sometimes Lawful Neutral depending on the game, the world, and the writing involved.
Since, in reality, I don't really want to be a huge dick to everybody and, generally, help others.

Most people, generally speaking, are pretty good. Although DnDs alignment system is far from perfect and insanely flawed in many respects.

Always Lawful Good, even though I usually hate that alignment in shows/movies etc

Whenever I see games with actual alignment systems it usually is split between "Dumb Goodie Twoshoes" and "Cackling Evil Cartoon Supervillain".
In tabletop I usually play more Neutral Good or Lawful Neutral. Sometimes Chaotic Good/Neutral. A couple times I did go on the Evil scale and that was because everyone else was stupid-good.

>Most people, generally speaking, are pretty good.
Except when you start pointing out their evil behaviors and they start defending them instead of admitting that supporting genuine fucking slavery can't be excused with
>but we have canines

Usually Chaotic Neutral/Good.

The problem with real life is that "evil" is relative and unlikely a fantasy world there are not inherently good or evil beings.
By your logic most fantasy characters are evil as they consume meat.

Slavery doesn’t need an excuse

Lawful good is objectively the best alignment.

It's literally just to limit what artifacts you can use, swinging around a Holy Avenger while having the Eye of Vecna is just fucking stupid.

It was fine until they introduced law and chaos.

chaotic good because I like helping people but on my own terms and sometimes pocketing some of the benefits

Attached: 1537651367117.jpg (2048x1536, 188K)

Ah yes, the helpful murderhobo

This. Most people are somewhere on the good spectrum. It'd probably have to be neutral good for me, lawful good if I'm trying to restrict my gamestyle for the sake of fun, like playing as a bare-handed, robe wearing monk.

that's not chaotic good

yes it is. Don't make me stab you and take your wallet

lawful neutral and chaotic good are the only non-meme tiers.

Attached: hokuto no ken alignment.jpg (1500x1349, 1.13M)

Always good, desu, I don't like to make anyone suffer unless it's rightful and inevitable.

>chaotic good
>murderhobo
As expected of Chaotic Good.

yes, chaotic good is a thief that wants to be an hiro

Huh. I always saw Toki as neutral good and Kenshiro as lawful good

Attached: 60824180_617026405446914_3380905025710656439_n.jpg (1080x1080, 176K)

i'm in the same boat, but i think its more on the side of Lawful Good. As i refer new experiences to existing principles because i know them to be good and useful. Creating personal laws and trying to get others to recognize their validity so they benefit from them as well.

Does DnD have an objective morality independent of setting? Seems like it would be very convoluted otherwise. Like your character is chaotic because the current king is a tyrant and you lead a rebellion. If you overthrow him and put somebody in charge who you agree with 100% does your alignment now shift to lawful or do you stay chaotic and now suddenly hate him? Does your alignment automatically become lawful when you become a ruler since your word becomes the de facto law and everything you do is lawful by definition? Or is it always in regards to what $DEITY thinks is lawful and good?

Yes
you're suppose to make characters on a whim according to what you're playing
Someone who intends to play one character through-out multiple stories is doing it wrong

>not having the center space be just "Neutral Milk Hotel"

Neutral Good to experience story line then Chaotic Evil for fun.

works well in Bethesda games

Skyrim - Unarmed Badass Viking Commentary - youtube.com/watch?v=uhBiNx749Zw

The real problem is True Neutral Milk Hotel doesn't have the hands in the album cover positions.

Usually I'll go with lawful good, but sometimes I'll find out I can get XP and free shit by murdering civilians and go on a murdering frenzy. That's sort of what happened to me in Divinity Original Sin 1 and 2, to an extent.

>play a LG Paladin (or any LG character) in any D&D/PF campaign
>90% of the time the DM tries to introduce some bullshit moral choice to make me pick between Lawful or Good
>either way I "fall" and get punished for losing my powers even though I haven't done anything evil and tried to help

I'm getting real tired of this bullshit. It's especially aggravating when the setting even state that LG Paladins would prefer to do good over lawful acts but so long as they do it with the intention of helping out others and don't deliberately do evil, they're not gonna get punished or turn into a fallen paladin.
I had one DM that was good to play with as a LG Paladin and he made solid moral choices for me to do but didn't punish my me or my character for doing what my character thought was right. I don't understand why DMs have such a hard on for making paladins fall.

Attached: 1546142405108.jpg (1080x1080, 321K)

I played through Mass Effect as a Paragon, but I also murdered Wrex and Mordin. What does that make my alignment?

Attached: Word of God.jpg (781x750, 348K)

A lot of people have a really basic bitch understanding on the alignment system in D&D. It's meant to be a general guide on how your character behaves rather than a strict system. If you want to spare those bandits that are begging for mercy, that's fine and is something a LG alignment would arguably do. Or if you want to wipe them because they killed a lot of innocent people, that's also arguably a LG act because you're carrying out justice for those who died.
DMs just like to bully paladins because they're easy targets to weaken if you set up convoluted ass situations.

Attached: LG.png (1903x950, 249K)

>In order to be enslaved you have to have a concept of freedom.
Then why does it still count as slavery when it's roasties who don't understand what freedom is, or when it's niggers who don't even understand the concept of choices?
Cmon son.
I mean yeah I get why animals shouldn't have a moral obligation to freedom. But if that's your argument, then humans don't have that moral obligation to freedom either.

>I also murdered Wrex
kill yourself

Is Two Face lawful evil or chaotic evil?

>liking the space niggers
Come on man, they need to be exterminated
Mordin was cool though, I just couldn't convince him not to reverse the genophage

I'm boring so I just go for True Neutral

There's no doubt some instinctive part of us that wants to help each other; we're herd animals after all, and to help one survive is to help the group survive. To say most humans are good is a stretch though, most are self-centered and only care about their immediate circle of relatives and friends, if not only themselves.

So while it may make sense to RP as a good character because a selfish one would just avoid most quests that don't benefit them directly, that already sets you apart as unusually selfless and heroic, especially if you start as a level 1 unremarkable generic dude. Sure you might save this village from the orc attack, but so what? The world in which orcs attack helpless villagers still exists after you've cleaned up the place and you can't save everyone.

Attached: dquith-bc085e9f-e220-4a7b-b316-7526468c6add.jpg (1024x768, 108K)

Usually end up on the evil side tho I just play as I like instead of picking a side and going with it.
It just so happens that a lot of times being an asshole is way more fun than being a good person.

>you cannot be systematically chaotic.
*breath in*
S U C C

Alignments are more a general guide on your character's behavior and it can depend on the setting. Like a chaotic character can put a king in charge, but it doesn't mean they'll suddenly obey the King's every command. And just because they're chaotic doesn't mean they're gonna break the law every second. A Lawful Good character doesn't obey unjust laws, they'll usually try to change it or bend it to be more merciful/reasonable, etc.
t's easier to view it as their view on how strict they should obey the law and how selfish/selfless they are and it can always vary. Two Chaotic Good characters can have very different views on the law, one could be a rebel while the other is more of a robin hood type of dude.
A lot of more modern settings aren't that strict on the alignment system. It's mainly used as a gameplay mechanic to see how spells and other shit affect your character. It depends on the setting though.

Lawful, Joker would be Chaotic

>tfw never played as evil character in games with moral choices because don't like seeing virtual pixels suffer

Attached: 1381156770500.png (246x269, 101K)

>do good playthrough
>''nice, now let's try evil''
>a few hours in
>''I actually really don't like being evil''
>do another good playthrough the exact same way
every single time

I've completely skipped the "let's try evil" step since I was a teenager desu. Being edgy just to be edgy is cringy as fuck.

Yeah so have I but I was just using an example of it when I was younger

I always choose neutral good.

Being a selfish asshole IRL, I enjoy pretending to be the good guy in games.

Lawful neutral, bringing harsh justice to order-deprived lands.

I think what annoys me is a lot of evil routes is just being evil to be a dick. I'd be more down with it if it's a more pragmatic evil, like you're manipulating people and doing betrayals for your own benefit but you're not running around try to fuck people over for shit and giggles.

I don't even know how many times I've beaten each Mass Effect game, both KoToRs, Jade Empire, and who knows what else, and I have never once been anything but pure good.

robbaz is the best

Two Face is neutral evil, and in some versions it even reaches qualities of a true neutral

>You see a homeless guy with a dog begging for money. What do you do?
>a) Give the man $1.00
>b) Kick his dog and laugh

Neutral Good.

Attached: neck scritches.png (542x750, 398K)

the dog is begging for money?

Attached: 1522774181006.jpg (510x427, 24K)

true neutral: do a then b

Neutral Good or Lawful Good, depending on the game

true neutral wouldn't do either

whats the one that is usually good but does bad shit when its beneficial? sometimes you just gotta say fuck you and kill them but usually try to choose the good boy choices

Well he is having a ruff day.

the man is poor so to restore balance you need to give him money

but that's a good deed so now you have to make a bad one to restore balance

Well how about I give the dog a break
*snap*

chaotic good?
but if you kill people for your benefit I guess it's more of a neutral evil

>the man is poor so to restore balance you need to give him money

Attached: Commies.jpg (3840x2160, 2.04M)

its usually the evil people I kill though
like i still go around saving people but sometimes you dont want to be good with evil douches. chaotic good sounds about right i guess

a neutral evil also isn't opposed to doing good acts, as long as he gets something out of it

one of the goods, though I find the lawful/chaotic spectrum is just plain retarded.
I guess I'd say LG or NG most of the time.
>murdered mordin
why?
if you murdered wrex and convinced mordin maelin's experiments were wrong you can keep based lizard bro alive
honestly if you're going to sabotage the genophage you need to, both because wreav is a retard and it supports the argument the krogan are unredeemable and you'll have to kill wrex later anyway if you sabotage it which is just tragic. As opposed to 1 where you can at least say he chimped out like retard (though you pushed him of course)

being good doesn't mean you're good to evil people... in fact that's more of a neutral thing to do, a lawful good would probably commit himself to murder evil people, so again, it depends on your motivations

>okay this is why Lawful Good is the BEST alignment
>describes Neutral Good

Attached: 1518249220964.jpg (402x604, 31K)

i try to play as i would if the game gives me the option, i find it more interesting than saying "my character is lactose intolerant so he doesn't eat cheese"

Er, get with the times gramps, you're forced to play lawful good in modern rpg's otherwise you're a toxic bigot nazi incel.

*chaotic good

I thought Chaotic Good was the popular one, on account of the Cool Kids Resisting Authority stuff.

Chaotic/Neutral Evil. I'm all about that loot.

>you can keep based lizard bro alive
Yeah, nah, when I saw the opportunity to kill Wrex, I took it.

Attached: Aligment Chart.png (1002x759, 916K)

wrong lizard, I meant Mordin

forgot for a moment they're both reptiles (well I guess salarians are amphibians but whatever)

I will always play true neutral because it's the easiest alignment to get along with.
>everyone else is playing evil
ok, I'll tag along and let them do whatever they want
>everyone else is playing good
alright, lets go save some people
>mixture of good and evil in party
I can sit in the middle and mediate and try to get everyone to get along
give me a reason NOT to play TN

you sound like everyone's bitch

>give me a reason NOT to play TN
that your fundamental understanding of TN is completely wrong
in all of those cases you described, a TN would be the pain of the ass of the group, pushed aside by the good and probably killed by the evil

You realize Liberty Prime is used as satire right?

Same, I just finished my Baldur's Gate first playthrough as a good guy, then start a second playthrough as a neutral evil, a few hours later I just stop and go back to play good guy again.

I guess I was in the moment (also not savescumming) so I was trying to subtly convince Mordin not to go through with it, but I didn't choose the right tack. Had to kill him. Sucked, but also gave me the feels.

Crazy feels too when I left Ash to die after I'd been chatting up both her and blueberry and they confronted me and I chose Liara. I literally decided to let her die. Them feels.

I played a True Neutral Paladin for a game that went on for a super long fucking time, and it was kind of of interesting. It was almost like playing someone who adapted who he was to sit the situation, and was only the 'real person' around the party. He was noble, regal, and stalwart, or he was crude, vicious, and violent. It was like a tripolar character.
He encouraged going to save a town, but then proceeding to try and rob its bank, but then compromised that he would give some of the money out to the poorer townspeople, while they were at it, but only if they could get a pardon for robbing the bank if they were discovered.

True Neutral isn't as bad as people think. It's kind of, 'what is this character feeling that is unrestricted by morality' at this moment?
Does he feel the need to quite literally cut this enemy army in half? No moral flexibility or quandry, it's always 'do', not 'consider'. It got him in a lot of trouble, but he always ended up leading the party to greater and greater conquest.

Satire or not, he's completely right in every word he says.

Neutral good, I dont go out of my way to break the laws but I am not beholden to them if I see something valuable.

I fixed it

Attached: Capture.png (682x681, 92K)

>those spelling errors
It's hard to take you seriously when you type like a baby.

fair enough

Lawful good/neutral good because i'm a pussy

>Neutral character
>describe a Chaotic character

That's the thing, he wasn't particularly chaotic. He used diplomacy, followed laws and ensured they were followed, and stopped his friends from doing innane shit unless he was positive he could get away with it.
It was self-limited caution that differentiated it from a chaotic throw-it-to-the-wind attitude.