What of the following is the most frustrating for you to play

>>51292531
Chaotic Stupid. More often than not, the first three are just extreme characters being played by reasonable people (Stupid Evil excepted, perhaps) and can be talked into moderating their IC behavior for the sake of the game and group as a whole. But Chaotic Stupid characters are usually played by people who don't give a fig about roleplaying, and just think it's funny to blunder through the story, upsetting things with their random hijinks. You can't rationalise with these people, only put up with them or kick them out.

>>51292531
You can disown Chaotic Stupid characters to get away from their antics, but Lawful Stupid is just a hassle.

>>51292531

Oh God, the Chaotic Stupid deserves to be punted off a cliff. The others are workable within certain contexts, even the evil dude, but the CS is not only unpredictable, but has no easy way to control them like the other three alignments who are predictable enough to plan around. I say this after playing with one such person and watched as he ran screaming through the dungeon Leeroy Jenkins style and luckily only got himself killed, but nearly derailed the campaign in the process.

File: batman at barbara's spinal loss.jpg (171KB, 625x790px) Image search: [Google]

171KB, 625x790px

>>51292531
>>The Chaotic Stupid character that refuses to allow others in the party to limit their actions whatsoever and goes out of their way to do as they please, frequently putting the party at a disadvantage with their flagrantly illegal actions.
Probably it's because those have been more common in games I've played, but they also seem to be played by people who get a kick out of shafting the entire party for a quick laugh.

>>51292531
Chaotic Stupid, hands down. All the others can be reasoned with, worked around, or at the very least predicted.

Since general consensus is that Chaotic Stupid is the worst, which of these four terrible archetypes would you rather play with if you had to?

>>51293811
Chaotic stupid is the most predictable of the bunch. If it fucks everyone else, he's going to do it.

>>51292531
>Good character that frowns upon evil actions
>is unwilling to compromise in morally grey situations.
GEE WOW IT'S LIKE THEY ARE A GOOD PERSON OR SOMETHING

>>51294343
Stupid Good. I like Paladins, and I could dig the idea of starting out playing a completely uptight, single-minded Paladin and seeing how IC events force him to confront and perhaps compromise his zeal.

>>51292531
gotta say lawful stupid. nobody likes a clipboard warrior except another clipboard warrior, and giving them any kind of authority is just retarded.

>>51292531
Stupid Good one used to be irritating, but accidentely killed himself trying to avoid grey morality situation, and refused to play after that.

Chaotic Stupid, on the other hand, suicided a lot of characters putting a lot of people in straight danger, killed few party members, and don't want to leave. So Chaotic Stupid it is.

>>51294343
Well, that depends on whether or not character development is a thing allowed in the campaign. If the other members of the party are willing to work with me, then I'd love to play as an Evil Stupid guy that slowly becomes less stupid as time goes on.

If character development is against da rules, then lawful stupid so that I be Judge Dredd now.

>Lawful Stupid: STOP! YOU HAVE VIOLATED THE LAW!
>The Rogue: ...no I haven't!
>LS: SILENCE! You have committed, in the four minutes since you entered this city, fourteen acts of larceny, three acts of bribery, and one act of improper horse parking.
>TR: ...Are you serious?
LS: DEADLY! (Clubs the rogue over the head and carries him to the local jailhouse)

>>51294418
Yeah that definition of "stupid good" is actually a pretty decent character/player.

Real "stupid good" would be the guy who shouts his position to the enemy because an ambush would be unfair.