CG or LE?

>>46021717
>lived by an explicit code of conduct that defines his life
>falls apart without it
>murders people
>but only when he feels 'justified'

LE to a T.

>>46021814
Pretty much.

/thread for you Anon.

>>46021717
LN, accept no substitute.

>>46021814
>Just because a character has principles or a code of self-conduct, that automatically make them Lawful.

Not saying you're wrong when it comes to Dexter, but I'm tired of seeing a profusion of the above statement on /tg/ when it isn't always accurate.

>>46026098
Seconding

The perverse look of pleasure he has when he kills his victims shows that, deep down, he really enjoys it. There's no way he's CG, LE whose convinced himself that's he's LN or TN.

Incidentally, his face when he does that is also the reason I stopped watching that show.

>>46021717
Neither. That's not a d&d character, he doesn't live in a world where morality is based and actively enforced on 9 alignments.

If you want to force the issue then he's probably closest LN or TN. He just did what he was driven to do without having much choice in the matter, and usually kept to his code.

>>46027610
Wrong as fuck. Murder is evil in this world and that world.

File: 1e Alignments.png (487KB, 465x1064px) Image search: [Google]

487KB, 465x1064px

>>46027610
>muh rigid nine alignments lie
>on my /tg/

Cut that shit out.

>>46026322
>>Just because a character has principles or a code of self-conduct, that automatically make them Lawful.
Yes.

>>46028381
Not necessarily, they have to value place value in the idea of order.

>>46028182
No it's not. It boils down to motives. If he literally can't help himself then morality doesn't come into it.

>>46028304
>muh alignments make sense anywhere other than d&d where they are part of the actual cosmology
Cut that shit out.

>>46028427
If you have a code of ethics and you take it seriously, you are Lawful. Alignments describe behavior.

>>46028457
>>muh alignments make sense anywhere other than d&d where they are part of the actual cosmology
>Cut that shit out.
Alignments are a way of describing people in terms of two variables. That's all they are.

>>46028479
No, they're a clump of fluff and mechanics that tie that character into the larger world, particularly when it comes to matters of spirituality.

The only place where they exist they are a cosmic fundamental.

>>46028460
Robin Hood had a code of ethics, but he's the poster child for CG. Paladins in D&D 5th edition swear oaths with various tenets, but can be any alignment. Unless the character believes that law and order are important, they are not lawful.

>>46028530
I wonder how it feels to be this wrong?

>>46028531
Except law and order have nothing to do with lawful alignments directly, they just coincide often. For example, a character does not automatically have to follow every law, especially foreign ones, to be lawful. Many criminals are lawful. Many paladins are foreign and have no interest in the local laws, and see no need to be loyal to the liege of the land.

Really, if a character is orderly then they are lawful is the best way to phrase it. All of the alignment arguments over the years would have been avoided if they named it orderly instead of lawful.

>>46028599
Nice argument, anon :^)

>>46028599
Seriously, tho, have you ever read a D&D book?
In D&D settings, Law/Chaos/Good/Evil are not ideas, they are literally fundamental cosmic forces that make up existence. That is why excising them from D&D is actually impossible, the core underpinnings of the settings run on the idea of "alignments", which are objective principals that exist outside of morals, ethics, and subjective understanding.
It is players and DMs that fuck it up, as well as people like you who don't actually understand what they are talking about.

>>46028617
>Nice argument, anon :^)

this debate club is terrible!

It feels more like an image board than anything!

>>46028617
You don't /have to/ follow /every/ law, but you have to believe in the ideals of law.

>Many criminals are lawful.
What sort of retard statement is that? Of course there are lawful criminals, that's why lawful evil exists, but they're criminals who abuse the laws of the land or the or the order of society to better themselves at the expense of others.

>>46028647
In D&D alignments are real forces, sure, but that doesn't at all mean the law/chaos+good/evil alignment descriptor can't be used in other contexts.

>>46028661
>>46028304
>>on my /tg/
First time on /tg/, or pretending to be retarded? We may never know.

>>46028617
To interject, anon, the earlier D&D books, as well as the 4e book, explained Lawful succinctly:
A orderly society/civilization is important towards *insert end goal*.
Lawful things in and of itself is a means to an end, representing internal structure and stasis, which is why it is a cosmic power in opposition to Chaos, the lack of structure and change.
>people in this thread need to read the Planescape books desperately, more than Green Wizard needs food

>>46028670
Yes it does, because the only reason they make sense even in D&D is because there are cosmic forces that are making them objective in-setting. If you take them out of their setting they become completely meaningless. As this thread is demonstrating. If this were about a d&d character you could easily say which alignment Dexter is definitively, it would both be on his stat sheet and you could see his interaction with his setting's gods.

>>46028670
Howeverm what that also means is outside D&D, they do not possess the same weight.
In D&D, Good is defined utterly and objectively. You DO these things more than Evil things, you are Good, end story. Your intent, motive, or how you came about it do not matter. That is why Gaeas, for example, isn't an evil spell, despite it being near enslavement; Gaeas does not force you to evil acts, nor to good acts, but the acts you take are based on the caster's will.
Other settings do not work on the iron clad, objective definitions of the word that D&D does, and so they lose most of their meaning and principal in the translation.

>>46028708
>being this autistic
It absolutely makes sense in other contexts, it's just not objective anymore. Dexter can be described as Lawful Evil. Dexter can also be described as Chaotic Good. Only autistic retards can't handle subjective description.

>>46028708
This.
Even if the character was in a D&D setting, he would end up LE, as he actively commits what would be termed as murder, illicit deaths for personal reasons without ameliorating circumstances like self defense or acting under the auspices of a policing organization.
Even a claim of vengeance wouldn't work, as he isn't doing so for the sake of the offended party.

>>46028771
Then why make this useless thread? You already knew that if you include all subjective viewponts that dexter is all 9 alignments at the same time.

>>46028771
>Only autistic retards can't handle subjective description.
And using D&D descriptions either carry the inherent properties of them, or are meaningless drivel.
This is why you are getting it wrong, you dunce. You are trying to have cake and eat it, use words the way you want, not the way they are supposed to be taken in their context.

>>46028775
I would say mental illness is an ameliorating circumstance. Besides, if he were in an actual d&d world he would probably be randomly killing orcs out there with every other good adventurer. He wouldn't be evil because he'd be killing evil things. I don't know how you don't see this parallel.

>>46026472
>Incidentally, his face when he does that is also the reason I stopped watching that show.
Really?
Why?

>>46021717
He's obviously a "D&D alignements are fucking retarded! Play a character, not an alignment you dumb motherfucker"

>>46028851
He found his homo attraction to the main actor disturbing.

>>46028816
>I would say mental illness is an ameliorating circumstance
In D&D, they literally are NOT.
You are judged solely on acts, not intent, motive or whatever else.
If you murder because you are crazy, you are still evil, and that would even put you towards Neutral/Chaotic axis on top of it.
This is why you keep getting told you don't actually know what you are talking about.

>>46028873
Except killing evil things isn't murder, so dexter wouldn't be committing murder in the first place.

>This is why you keep getting told you don't actually know what you are talking about.
Where :^)

>>46028905
>Except killing evil things isn't murder
Yes, it is, actually. Killing without just cause is murder.
You need an addendum to it, such as self defense or being an agent of an organization involved in prosecuting criminals.
>where
>>46028795
>>46028790
>>46028742
>>46028708
>>46028697

>>46028873
But if you've lost your ability to make moral decisions, shouldn't you be true neutral, like an animal?

>>46028945
>Yes, it is, actually. Killing without just cause is murder.
No it's not, or absolutely every adventurer who thinned out a goblin nest without provocation would be evil. That's not how the D&D world works. Killing evil things is fine in and of itself.

>where
>(you) (you) (you)
So you're saying I'm calling myself wrong?
OK m8

>>46028961
So you are implying that everyone with a mental illness is an animal?
Animals have a specific measure of things that make them that category in D&D, not simply on moral decisions. That is a real life caveat.

>>46028991
>So you are implying that everyone with a mental illness is an animal?
Jesus christ. This caliber of fallacious and dishonest argument is making me cringe so hard and I'm not even part of your conversation. Get help anon.

>>46028973
Most of the time those goblins are either fucking with a nearby village, kidnapping/eatign children or jsut straight up attacked the party. You're full on fucking evil if your motivation for destroying a village of goblins is nothing more than "They're there and tend to be evil fuckwads."

>>46029020
Yeah, "most of the time" they're doing something bad, but it's okay to kill them *all* of the time because they have EVIL written on their character sheets. Hence some of the time you can kill them for no reason at all, and it's still all fine.

>>46028961
Crazy people do make moral decisions. All the time. Its jsut thattheir morality is skewed becasue their perception of the world is skewed. The schizophrenic doesn't fly off the handle and murder people because he no longer knows it isn't right; he does it because the divine voices in his head have told him its the just thing to do.

>>46029036
No, it isn't. You can't kill something because they MIGHT do something evil and be jsutified.

>>46028973
>Killing evil things is fine in and of itself.
So you say. The books that define good and evil of ages past disagree. There is a reason that early paladins had to treat lethal combat as a last resort measure against creatures that couldn't be reasoned with, and that is because killing without provocation is not Good.
>calling myself wrong
Perhaps you should present something less of a schizoid argument, then?
>>46029017
He is saying that a mental illness makes you the level of a beast, which is nonsense in a D&D setting.

>>46028991
>So you are implying that everyone with a mental illness is an animal?
Let me respond with something equally meaningful to the discussion; yes. We're all animals. Mammals specifically, of the family Hominidae.

>>46029089
In D&D, an animal is specifically different than a humanoid.
We ARE talking about D&D here, so lets remain on topic, please.

>>46029061
Except that's not what's being done. You kill something because it IS evil on the evil radar that many classes get. It doesn't matter one bit what they're doing, being evil is an inherent part of their existence because that's how the universe works.

>>46029068
Perhaps you should work a bit harder to not mistake me for someone who never even said anything similar to what I've been saying.

>>46029100
What, redemption isn't an option?

>>46029068
>He is saying that a mental illness makes you the level of a beast, which is nonsense in a D&D setting.
No, he isn't. He's saying that animals are true neutral because they are incapable of moral consideration, and that this means it's a reasonable conclusion that any being that isn't capable of moral consideration is also true neutral. Unless it's powered by demonic energies or something, but that's a different matter since mentally deficient mortals are still mortal.

>>46029114
Could be, but it doesn't matter to the act of killing something objectively evil. Not waiting around for the enemy to attain redemption would perhaps piss off a merciful god that you're the follower of, but it still wouldn't be an evil act.

>>46029120
Animals are literally too stupid to attempt to possess those moral considerations in D&D, however, and that is why they are neutral, not the other way around.
A humanoid with more than 3 intelligence is not privy to that clause, as they are CAPABLE of ration thought

>>46029100
It's still murder without due provocation. If you kill a member of one of the core races in the middle of a city jsut because he pinged evil on your radar, are you justified for doing that? Because try telling that to literally everyone around you.

>>46029165
Except the entire point is that some aren't capable of moral consideration because of various factors.

>>46029188
But those factors aren't the same factors that prohibit an animal. The mentally ill are still sapient, after all.

>>46021717
LG. Dexter cannot change how his psyche was damaged into the shape of a murderer, only channel it. Armed with conclusive proof, he kills those who have conducted heinous acts who have escaped justice, often on a technicality or through being overlooked. He's a Paladin who fell while only a child, and is trying to work his way back up to being fully human.

>>46029186
>It's still murder without due provocation.
No it's not, because they're evil.

> If you kill a member of one of the core races in the middle of a city jsut because he pinged evil on your radar, are you justified for doing that?
So you're bringing law-chaos into this now? Don't make it confusing, anon, we were discussing if it was an evil act or not, not if it was a justified act or not.

>>46029195
He's hands down a psychopath. that already eliminates ever "becoming" human.

>>46029194
No, the base of the matter is that the creature isn't capable of moral consideration. It doesn't understand morality. If you have a human who can't understand morality, regardless of their intelligence or sapience, then you have someone who just isn't capable of moral consideration, and thus should count as true neutral.

>>46029097
The question I was replying to obviously referred to the real world, so start your bitching there or fuck right off.

>>46029211
>D&D alignments
>real world
:^)

>>46029210
But that isn't how D&D alignments work, you little shit, why is that so hard for you to follow?
If you are intelligent enough to judge, then you yourself are judged. Having some mental illness does not allow you to escape the cosmic force that are alignments and never have.

So, if I think that theft and violence (except in certain cases of defense) are the only real crimes and the law of the land exists primarily to serve those who write and enforce it (and to whom it doesn't really apply) at the expense of the general population and I'm dedicated to ending theft and violence through peaceful means whenever possible, am I lawful or chaotic?

Basically, what if someone has a strong internal code but strong contempt for the legal system?

>>46029242
Except someone who isn't capable of moral consideration isn't intelligent enough to judge, even if their intelligence score is 30.

>>46029253
Intelligence and morality have no correlation; you can have literally no concept of empathy, good or evil and still be a Da Vinci tier genius. Hence the existence of Psychopaths.

>>46029253
>Except someone who isn't capable of moral consideration isn't intelligent enough to judge, even if their intelligence score is 30.
Welcome to D&D, where it DOESN'T work like that.
Enjoy your stay.

>>46029252
I'm reading it as NG. You'd have to further describe the lenghts of law breaking you're willing to go to on your quest to make a good judgement about L-C.

>>46029269
I'm going to assume that you aren't the person I responded to because a large part of his argument was based on the idea that intelligence correlating with morality was the reason why animals are true neutral and more intelligent beings cannot fall under the same concepts. And thinking you're the same person would just make you look fucking schizo.

>>46029278
>No it's not!
Nice argument.

>>46029279
Oh, so you were being facetious? My apologies.

>>46029209
Sociopath rather than psychopath. And most of his difficulties arise through the learning process.

>>46029291
No, I'm saying that if you're the person I was responding to earlier then you made a 180 degree turn on the most basic parts of your arguments and that I'm incredibly confused about what the fuck you're trying to say at this point.

File: Last of the Brunnen-G.jpg (340KB, 700x1116px) Image search: [Google]

340KB, 700x1116px

>>46029253
No, they aren't able to make illogical judgments based on emotion. They are still able to make judgments based on defined legal or ethical parameters. Someone without emotion would theoretically be the perfect arbiter of justice.

>>46029309
I'm not the same guy, don't worry.

Or am I?

>>46029317
Doesn't justice rely heavily on empathy, understanding and mercy? Because someone with no emotions would be completely unsuited to any of those.

>>46029320
Well gee, you could have just said yes when I asked.

>>46021717
Neutral evil?

he enjoys killing, but he doesn't fall into blood lust. He actually cares about some people and isnt a total murderhobo.

>>46029342
He kills because he is helplessly driven to, not for personal gain, therefore not evil.

>>46029279
>You'd have to further describe the lenghts of law breaking you're willing to go to on your quest to make a good judgement about L-C.
Literally zero regard for the sanctity of law, although I'd still avoid things likely to cause more trouble than they're worth like, I don't know, shitting on a guard's boots. I'd break any law without a second thought in private, though. Including assassination if I thought it could result in the end of oppression in a short period of time, but not if I thought it could cause rioting or the target's replacement by someone who was just as bad.

>>46029364
>Hitler was helplessly driven to purge the jews, not for personal gain

Taking away others freedom is lawful and evil without provacation

>>46029373
And are you willing to work with and use law to further your mission if and when it becomes appropriate? I'd say that's the deciding factor between chaotic and neutral at this point.

>>46021717
He could pass for a paladin by Gygaxian standards, couldn't he? And he doesn't even kill evil babies.

>>46029327
>Doesn't justice rely heavily on empathy, understanding and mercy?
Well, first of all, no. Justice only means a system of punishments in response to rule violations which are considered acceptable by the culture they exist within. There is nothing inherently cruel or compassionate about it, those aspects are subjective and variable.

But also, what I meant was, you would have laws established by other people who did have emotion and compassion, and used it to inform their concepts of what was just. Then an emotionless intelligence, which would never be swayed by feelings of revenge or compassion, would hand down judgment based on those laws, with the goal of being as fair and consistent as possible.

>>46029379
The rain took away my freedom to have a nice day outside today, and I didn't provoke it in any way, obviously the rain is evil.

>>46029387
I don't see why not. So, neutral good, then?

File: 2000px-Maslow's_Hierarchy_of_Needs.svg[1].png (261KB, 2000x1500px) Image search: [Google]

261KB, 2000x1500px

>>46029401
Morality is something that comes into play after food, water, and shelter are accounted for. Once you're sheltered from the rain, it's no longer a concern. Therefore, the environment can have no effect on your morality.

>>46029501
No no, the rain is evil, it isn't making me evil.

>>46029501
While you're in the rain, the status of the rain's morality is of no concern to you. Once you're out of it, the rain isn't affecting you.

>>46029560
>Once you're out of it, the rain isn't affecting you.
Yes it is, it's denying you option to go out in the sun.

>>46028381
>be assassin
>fucking hate everyone
>kill people all the time
>sometimes just for fun
>do a bit of stealing here and there too
>fucking hate the police and anyone involved with order
>kill judges and lawyers and shit for fun
>one time I blew up a police station
>have a code though
>saw my siblings die as a young child
>because of this I don't kill kids
>this makes me lawful

No you are retarded, defining yourself as lawful means you like structure and order, and you support those ideals when presented with the opportunity. It does not mean that you obey any rules ever. Everyone obeys SOME rules.

>>46029560
>Rain morality
>not worried about getting a cold or pneumonia

I found the Sinthetic, send a runner

>>46028670
It would be silly since in no way a lawful teleporting dog would suddenly appears to bite the ass of a naughty person or

A tribunal trial that in the real world is a matter of evidence and arguments and not a fucking holy person appointed by hand of the god of law and truth simply taking a gander at you and seeing the metaphysical manifestation of guilt and sin

You can, but it would be super silly.

He's definitely Lawful. He perfectly sticks to a code,t hat's the definition of Lawful.

I'd say LN is closest. A LE wouldn't care about killing good or bad people. A LG wouldn't enjoy killing at all, would only kill to preserve justice.

>>46029199
>No it's not, because they're evil.
Unless the law in the area specifically says "It's okay as long as your evildar pings them" or specifically listed that group for killing it's murder no matter you think. And ethically it's always murder unless you know they personally have committed crimes or have physically evidence they are going to do so in the future. Just because they're evil also doesn't make them law breakers.
There is no part of this to debate. The definition of murder is unlawful killing. If your killing however good you think it is goes against both the law and ethics there's no way you can say it's lawful. God damn you are a shitty roleplayer and I'm glad even the worst people in my group aren't as bad as you.

>>46021717
Lawful Evil. Following a personal code with the passion he does makes him lawful. Being willing to bend it for personal gain, like in the case of trinity killer, and focusing on killing people who are most inconvenient to him makes him Evil.

>>46029301
"Psychopathy" is the correct term for sociopathy.

>>46028182
Do you think killing Hitler would have been evil? Do you think that people who killed Mussolini were evil? Would you kill, I don't know, Abu Bakr?

>>46029985
Actually neither term is correct medically speaking. But it is commonly accepted for layman to refer as sociopath to people who lack empathy and psychopath to people who lack emphaty and are prone to erratic behaviour harmful to others.

File: 1444871128732.png (103KB, 450x612px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 450x612px

>>46029501
> homeostasis
wew

While we're on the subject of rain: rainy and cloudy weather has a big effect on my mood, especially with combination of the time of day and how wet I myself am, to the point when me during a sunny day and me soaked under midnight rain are two entirely different people.
> le free will meme
It doesn't exist, lads.

>>46021717
CN

>>46029936
>Unless the law in the area specifically says
>law
:^)

>>46029038
Do you have any fucking understanding of mental health at all?

OP here, I love you /tg/

>>46030178
We love you too.

Didn't he kill criminals/serial killers? That sounds chaotic good to me.

>>46028381
Robin Hood is Lawful now?

File: MixedAlignmentsLN.png (179KB, 392x453px) Image search: [Google]

179KB, 392x453px

First, some thoughts I agree with:
>>46028670
>In D&D alignments are real forces, sure, but that doesn't at all mean the law/chaos+good/evil alignment descriptor can't be used in other contexts.
This

>>46028742
>what that also means is outside D&D, they do not possess the same weight.
True, but that hardly makes them useless.
Describing something as North or South carries less weight without a starting reference point than if you’re at the North Pole, but that doesn’t make the directions useless.

>>46028973
>>Yes, it is, actually. Killing without just cause is murder.
>No it's not, or absolutely every adventurer who thinned out a goblin nest without provocation would be evil. That's not how the D&D world works. Killing evil things is fine in and of itself.
>Killing evil things is fine in and of itself.
Or perhaps, know that something is evil is, generally, considered “just cause”?
Ignoring an evil, people eating ogre because he has recently been craving mountain goats and hasn’t threatened anyone in months is not “Good”.
While the heroes are off killing more “actively evil” threats, the ogre could easily get a craving for human children and eat a school full of them.
Which is a nice segue to our OP and Dexter...

>>46030409
Meant to use that pic with this post

>>46021717
>CG or LE?
I’m going to presume that you chose those two alignments as a way of encompassing the spectrum Dexter could have rather than that you are an idiot.
Dexter is regimentally Lawful, despite breaking the law or failing to uphold his code all the time.
His chaotic impulse and desire drives his actions, but his actual actions and intent are very lawfully guided by his Code.
As to whether he is evil, he doesn’t kill the good or even slightly evil people, he only ever kills those that he is certain are violently evil offenders that the world is better off without.
His intentions and actions are not really evil.
As to whether he is good, he doesn’t kill people for justice or for the good of anyone, he generally only kills because he likes it and could stop, but doesn’t.
His intentions and actions are not really good.
In short, Dexter is how I Lawful Neutral.

>> 46029195
>He's a Paladin who fell while only a child, and is trying to work his way back up to being fully human.
I like this characterization of him, but you are forgetting that he has the option to turn himself in and not kill, which would be the LG choice, but he does not do that because he likes killing and his freedom.
Dexter remains LN.

Is the reason that certain topics always end in shit flinging is because all the sensible people on this board know to avoid them?

File: MixedAlignmentsTN.png (133KB, 400x430px) Image search: [Google]

133KB, 400x430px

>> 46029317
Yo hey vo, my True Neutral male sibling.


>> 46029327
>Doesn't justice rely heavily on empathy, understanding and mercy? Because someone with no emotions would be completely unsuited to any of those.
Not necessarily. I would argue that a sufficiently intelligent source could handle all of those adequately, theoretically perfectly.
Justice and mercy can be codified and intelligence brings understanding.
The imperfection would be when a new, unforeseeable and unprecedented scenario occurs.

>>46030418
This assumes that he could in fact stop killing, while it may in fact be just as difficult as to stop eating.

>>46030261
Well, yes. He's working against a usurper to defend his kingdom. Do all of the paladins in your setting immediately defect to the occupying force any time there's an invasion?

Split the difference and go with TN.

>>46030423
Mostly.
In this case, any sensible anon knows that alignments are either a mechanic and physical attribute of D&D, which is a flawed system, or a rough guide to characterization that's not to be held seriously.

Also, there are some anons like myself that simply enjoy discussing particular shit-flinging topics, regardless of the quality of other posters.

>>46030418
meant to link to >>46029195

>>46030429
meant to link to >>46029317 and >>46029327

That's what I get for typing out my posts beforehand while exhausted.

>>46030450
>This assumes that he could in fact stop killing, while it may in fact be just as difficult as to stop eating.
As I said, he could turn himself in and have the authorities/mental health professionals prevent him from killing/eating.
There are people who literally can't stop themselves from eating too, anon.
If left alone with enough food, they would eat until they killed themselves.

>>46029379
>Hitler was helpless
>>46029401
> the rain is evil.
Hey idiots?
Dexter’s desire is an evil one that he has no choice in having and therefore is not evil because of having that desire.
Willfully acting on that desire is evil, but as Dexter mitigates the evil by directing the evil against worse evil, the morality of it is questionable.

>>46021814

>lived by an explicit code of conduct that defines his life


actually not, he has a urge to murder, he do it to bad people only because his father discovered he would have this urge to kill people and so told him to only do it with bad people, to make it more justifiable

>>46021717
>CG or LE?


WHAT FUCKING EDITION

>>46029706
>>have a code though
>>this makes me lawful
Not that anon, but having a code is not the same as living by a code.
If your assassin lives by a code of structure and order and is methodical and orderly in regards to killing, even when he has selected the target for fun, then he could very well be Lawful.
You can be hate filled, fun-loving, anti-establishment, murderous criminal and still be Lawful.
Heck, that sounds like most murderhobo PCs.

>>46030558
>actually not,
Are you saying that Dexter did not live his life by a code, like "Harry's Code"?
Cause if so, that's dumb and I kinda doubt you actually watch the show.

>>46030592
>HYTNPDaD
6th

File: Disdain for Plebs.jpg (26KB, 400x462px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 400x462px

>>46030558
Do you realize that you just stated that Dexter didn't live by a code, and in order to prove that assumption, explained the details of the code he lived by, who taught it to him, and the purpose it served in his life?

>>46030558
>>46030680
>>46030758
If anything, Dexter is a lot like the characterisation of Maenads in Pathfinder, or similar races in other D&D/D&D-like systems - He is a fundamentally impulse-driven and chaotic individual who has tempered his desire to kill through lawful discipline, in his case, his foster dad's guidelines for conduct, murdering relatively cleanly in a prepared environment and only preying upon those who have proven themselves to not only be a similar kind of monster, but who have already escaped the notice or judgement of the law.

He's definitely LN, but he'd have the potential to be CN or even CE if he ever lapses in his self-discipline.

>>46030811
Agreed.

>>46030811
>he'd have the potential to be CN or even CE if he ever lapses in his self-discipline
That could really be said about everyone, though.

>>46030893
>That could really be said about everyone, though.
Not everyone leans toward chaotic impulses.
Some people require no self-discipline at all to remain lawful or good.
Maybe not on 4chan....

>>46030893
>>46031082
It's probably a cultural thing too - just look at far eastern nations with a history of collectivist politics and similar philosophies, like how Confucianism considered disloyalty to one's family among the greatest of wrongdoings.

We westerners by comparison have historically been real drunk on that freedom-juice even before the US sprung up. You'd definitely meet more 'chaotic' individuals on the streets of Boston than Pyongyang.

>>46026098
Thirding.

File: boo.gif (24KB, 274x200px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 274x200px

I've been in the bit of a problem regarding 2 alignments for my PCs
>What is the difference between Neutral Evil and True Neutral?

>>46031844
Nuetral Evil wants to commit Evil acts almost all the time. Their end goal is probably destruction of everything. NE could also be seen as Total Evil, not bound by law, or emotion. True Neutral is either someone who ardently supports neutrality over the other four tenets of existence, seeking balance in total moderation or someone who is "unaligned" and does not act in a way that forces him into one of the other 8 roles. Remember, saving a kitten almost drowning that once does not make you any flavour of Good aligned. Going out of your way to save every single living thing you encounter DOES however make you a force of Good.

Now remember kids, there is a difference between good and Good.

>>46028862
Then he definitely should avoid Six feet under

>>46032053
>I am a deeply hateful person, who will use and abuse any law in order to benefit me. I am the most important thing in my life. However i am very socialible and in public i'm a very sanguine person
Is this NE or TN?

>>46032111
LE, LN, TN and NE are all applicable there, I think

>>46032111
How is that even a question? TN is always going to be either someone that's doing good or evil acts in order to correct perceived imbalances (or similarly, someone dedicated to committing evil for a greater good, like dissecting living people for medical knowledge and shit like that), or it's going to be someone that doesn't really give a shit about morality in general and will do good as long as it's not inconvenient. As soon as you mention "hateful" or "use and abuse," you're solidly in Evil territory. In fact, I'd say you're clearly CN.

Your alignment has exactly nothing to do with the way others perceive you. All that matters is what you do and why you do it.