How do you play chaotic neutral correctly?

>>52701067
Han Solo

>>52701067
Free the slaves(all of them), hang the masters(Yes , all of them (Innocence is subjective))!

>>52701082
>>52701127
Aren't both of those CG?

>>52701220
Some of the masters are children,
some of the slaves are violent criminals.

The idea is that chaotic neutral exists to promote change and "change" the statues quo but not necessarily in a purely "Good" fashion.

>>52701261
So a good CN character might see himself as an agent of change?

>>52701067
Do whatever you want, damn the consequences, yolo and such

Like as far as I can tell it's adherence to nothing but your own whim, though that could easily be true neutral as well.

File: Bob.jpg (12KB, 246x205px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 246x205px

>>52701274
I'M JUST AN ORC
WHAT DO I NOW!?

>>52701220
Han Solo before he join the rebellion is pretty much CN. I deduce this from the movies, no EU bullshit.

Basically, as soon as an idea pops in your mind, do it. One of my favorite characters was a chaotic neutral follower of lady luck. Just be aware that you're going to fall flat on your face at least as often as you're going to do something completely awesome that's going to be remembered for months.

Case and point, shortly before trying to trade a party member for an elephant, my character decided to jump on top of the elephant to check it out. ... Nat 20. He made it in style. Then my character decided to jump off the elephant. Nat 1...

Final judgement? Painful but fun.

>>52701067
Choose narrow group of people you like. Make sure they will be okay. At any cost. Regardless of consequences.

>>52701261
>>52701277
Alternatively, a CN character might have a single, often personal, goal with the completion thereof being more important than the method by which this is attained. ie: "I will save my sister no matter what it takes," or "I'll end this tyranny and I'll take down anyone who gets in my way to do it," or "I'll make this cure work, even if I have to ignore all ethical standards in the process."

>>52701312
Stupid = TN by default

>>52701067
Chaotic neutral doesn't exist. Only Chaotic and Neutral.

>>52701067
You don't play chaotic neutral correctly.

You don't play chaotic neutral.

You don't play.

Don't play.

Don't.

>>52701067
I....
I don't hate this alignment chart.
What the fuck is wrong with me today?

>>52701067
>>52703372
The only one I don't like is NE. Disease just seems out of place with the other things.

>>52703448
This is a fair point, but I'm not sure what else would go there, since most other dangerous weather phenomena would be Chaotic.

>>52703636
Maybe the cold would fit? Or a desert?

A lifeless land as the opposite of the NG. Not intermittent like weather or useful like fire, but is still hostile to your existence. I can't think of a wise quote for it though.

>>52703773
You know, there's probably a good Jack London quote for the Alaskan wilds what might work.

>>52703828
>A vast silence reigned over the land. The land itself was a desolation, lifeless, without movement, so lone and cold that the spirit of it was not even that of sadness. There was a hint in it of laughter, but of laughter more terrible than any sadness-a laughter that was mirthless as the smile of the Sphinx, a laughter cold as the frost and partaking of the grimness of infallibility. It was the masterful and incommunicable wisdom of eternity laughing at the futility of life and the effort of life.

This might work if trimmed a bit

>>52703828
>>52704029
"Our food lies ahead and death stalks us from behind." — Ernest Shackleton

File: MixedAlignments.png (1MB, 1600x1375px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1600x1375px

>>52701067
>How do you play chaotic neutral correctly?
Captain.
Jack.
Sparrow.

Chiana works too.

File: 220px-Conan9.png (121KB, 220x245px) Image search: [Google]

121KB, 220x245px

>>52701067
Conan.

>>52701067
By rememberign chaos isn't lolrandom, or chaotic stupid. It's not even about funny. It's about changing. Change of oneself to grow and become different, to avoid stagnation and mindless stupidity. Stupid choices lead to incarceration, death, or destruction, and while the last might be interesting, once something is destroyed, it really can't change any further, and the other two definitely lead to stagnation.

Chaotic neutral is understanding that the world changes, and you can change with it, and that you can change the world, and both you and the world can grow. It's knowing that neither death nor kindness can really lead to true change, that only teaching and learning and living well and with no regrets can lead to honest and true changes. It's knowing that people are not meant to be unchanging, dull, monotonous creatures, but they resist change, so you have to be the better person and show them by example what growth and change is about.

>>52701336

This, Han Solo before he comes back for the death star assault is prime CN. Afterwards he is CG.

>>52701067
I would say, something along the lines of littlefinger but more rebellious. Do what you want, when you want, accept rules only if you are profiting from them and know only yourself as your master.

>>52701504
Sounds stupid when you put it this way.

File: plain simple garak.png (266KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

266KB, 500x500px

>>52704585

Is Garak CN?

>>52704720
I watched just some of the movies with Kirk, so I unfortunaly don't know.

Unprincipled, but clever enough not to do anything stupid, like betraying the party or blatantly antagonising the city guard. Basically a career criminal.

>>52704720
He's Chaotic Dissembling.
It's hard to say his true Good/Evil alignment.
He does seem CN.

>>52704249
>Shackleton
Nice.

>>52704446
>Once something is destroyed, it can't change any further.
Destruction is just another type of change though, the matter isn't truly destroyed.

>>52701067
I'd say that Rick from Rick & Morty is a well played chaotic neutral. Although he often slips in pure chaotic evil territory.

1e:
Destroy for the sake of destruction
Think Archaon/Kefka
2e:
LOL RANDUMB cancer
3e:
"Free spirit" roguish type who can be pretty dickish but tends to stop short of outright murder
5e:
"Follow your whims"???

>>52704306
>neutral
>dexter

>>52701067
You play your character and if Chaotic Neutral is the best way to describe them you put that on your sheet. If it's not and your DM starts autistically screeching that you are violating your alignment you quietly get up from the table and leave.

File: 1488098195431.gif (2MB, 320x200px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 320x200px

>>52701067

Who cares?

NG Best alignment for all time. Eat shit everyone else. LN and CG can come too. But as a guest.

File: wallhaven-334228.jpg (541KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

541KB, 1920x1080px

>>52701067
LG > LN > TN > CG > NG

The rest aren't interesting, but I love the quotes of all 5 of these, good stuff.

>>52701067
Put it down on your character sheet and just do whatever you want, within reason.
Every single time.
Because fuck the alignment system.

>>52701067
>How do you play chaotic neutral correctly?
CG with a shitload of bad habits.

>>52709194
Dexter wasn't Evil, and he followed a code very strictly, Where else would you put him?

>The heart can get really cold if all you've known is winter

>>52711334
>he followed a code
I don't know about him, but I would put your head into a wall.

>>52712418
Did you read either the books or watch the fucking show? Yeah he experimented at times, and tried different interpretations of his code, but he did, in fact, follow a code, and quite strictly.

>>52712577
Okay. That doesn't make him lawful.

>>52712595
Actually it does, go read any of the descriptions of Lawful Neutral in any of the D&D players handbooks or DMG's, but I do know that pretty much the only requirement of being lawful is that you follow a code, that code does not need to be a system of laws like today's modern society, it can be simply a personal code of ethics and morality, or even a code of conduct like Dexters, even though we never quite learn it all.

File: sartre-comic.jpg (159KB, 620x617px) Image search: [Google]

159KB, 620x617px

>>52701067
Do random shit and then yell "RADICAL FREEDOM." Your GM will love you for it.

>>52703773
>deserts
>lifeless

This nigga

>>52709194
>>52712418
>>52712595
It is true that not everyone that “follows a code” is Lawful Neutral.
However, Dexter’s code is an actual codified set of laws governing his conduct that he adheres to quite consistently.

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 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.

>>52712731
Have you ever been to the Sahara or Antarctica? Deserts whether hot or cold are by and large inhospitable to life, but I'm fairly sure he meant comparatively to the lush forest in neutral good, and not that deserts are entirely lifeless.

File: WALL.jpg (20KB, 559x444px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 559x444px

>>52712655
>>52712780

NE should be either salt flats or Antartic wasteland.

>>52712870
You got some kind of point?

>>52701504
>lel so rAandUMb xD WAFFLES owo

Please don't do this, to anyone reading. If you do do this, obtain bleach immediately.

Refer to this >>52704446 man. Be open to change. Cut throats and rescue orphans as appropriate to the situation and don't tie yourself down. Be malleable. Keep an open mind. You still have morals and SOME sense of empathy and goodwill, but it's all pretty subject to change and you see no issue in the occasional moral compromise in either direction.

But don't be a LE SO RANDUM!!! MEMES!! tool, either.

>>52712902
Yeah, that you're an idiot if you think having a private personal code to break the law is lawful.

>>52712939
Go read the Dungeons and Dragon's players handbooks, You know where the entire Lawful Chaotic Good Evil axes come from? they'll tell you the same fucking thing I just did, you fucking retard.

>>52712967
If you play with 9-point alignment, you're the retard.

>>52712976
Never said I did but when I used to I played it the way it was meant to be, you know the way they tell you it's supposed to be and that is that you allow a characters actions to define their alignment and not the other way around, so if you say put lawful good on your character sheet that only gets put there after your character shows that they both follow a code, and tend to be kind and generous.

File: Berseria Party.jpg (594KB, 2000x995px) Image search: [Google]

594KB, 2000x995px

>>52701572
I feel this is a good way to run a CN character.

I've been playing Tales of Berseria lately, and so far I can see that four out of the six Party Members are clearly Chaotic Neutral, and in different ways.

Velvet and Rokuro both have a goal that they will do almost anything in their power to accomplish, using every tool at their disposal to reach it. Though Rokuro has that whole "must repay debts" thing.

Eizen follows a creed that won't even allow what he is to get in the way of his freedom as a pirate.

And Magilou is just in the party because she gets bored otherwise and she wants to see the outcome of a bet. I'm willing to bet half the reason she's there is to fuck with the party.

Eleanor is Lawful Good turned Neutral Good, and I can't quite pin down Laphicet.

>>52712780
I k ow argueing the dumbness of alignment is the deadest of horses, but doesn't everyone have a code? An agent of freedom has a code (free all the slaves, destroy all the masters) an agent of pragmatism has a code (what's choice seems to lesd to the best outcome for [group]), even the joker has a code of the sort (he never seems to find a joke where the punchline is all the orphans get good homes). The question is sort of are you strict or are you wishy-washy.

The alignment should be on an axis like (selfish or not selfish) and (dedicated vs pragmatic).>>52711058

>>52713447
>doesn't everyone have a code?
Is an agent of freedom’s code an actual codified set of laws governing their conduct that they adhere to quite consistently?
Is an agent of pragmatism’s code an actual codified set of laws governing their conduct that they adhere to quite consistently?
Is the Joker’s code an actual codified set of laws governing their conduct that they adhere to quite consistently?
Not all codes are created equal.

>The alignment should be on an axis like (selfish or not selfish) and (dedicated vs pragmatic).
This presumes dedicated opposes pragmatism.
Which would need additional explanation.

>>52701067
Rance is Chaotic Neutral with strong Neutral Evil leanings. He does whatever he pleases for the sake of pussy, adventure, and being able to kick some ass. Cut down on the fact that he's a total rapist and you pretty much have a chaotic neutral.

>>52712577
Rance's code is "I don't fuck children", and he sticks to that and is very disapproving of pedophiles and incest. Does that make him lawful? Fuck no.

>>52716144
I don't even know who the fuck rance is, but Dexter also despises pedophiles, and I'll point out that having one thing you hate and won't do, does not make you have a fucking code.

Dexter IS shown as having a code, a very extensive one, and he follows it, damn near all of the time, but he has never been shown in either of his forms to be inordinately cruel, he is always outwardly kind and generous, but he just happens to kill people, except he only kills those who kill the innocent repeatedly, period. Yeah he's made mistakes but he's human, even if just barely, that's what qualifies him as lawful neutral. Whereas this Rance you mention sounds like a Chaotic Evil fucktard who you somehow think is Chaotic Neutral, no rapist would qualify for neutral status, not in any edition of D&D I'm aware of.

>>52716306
>rance
The eponymous character from Sengoku Rance
Extremely based

>>52713323
Eizen is probably Neutral Good.
Roku is a fun case, in that he could easily be LN, CN or even LE.
Laphicet is NG as FUCK.

In general, i can't pin any Berseria characters to one alignment.
Because they're well-written and alignments are shit.

>>52701067
ask >>>/b/

File: i guess.jpg (22KB, 321x357px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 321x357px

>>52712780
Lawful, sure he has a code and sticks to it.
but, killing for the pleasure of killing sounds a bit evil to me.

>>52718318
Yeah but it's mitigated by the fact that his code prohibits him from killing anyone except other evil people. It's evil in the service of good, so neutral on balance.

>>52718318
You should honestly read the books or a least watch the first season of the show. I'm not the guys you're arguing with but he is arguably lawful neutral. I personally feel Dexter would be closer to true neutral because he's a sociopath but the other anon makes a decent argument for LN.

I think the thing the differentiates Dexter is that his code is not his own made up code. His step father Harry noticed the he was killing small animals and doing other cereal killer stuff at a young age and gave him a set of rules on how, when, and who he could kill so the he could live a relatively normal life. This means he can only kill other killer, he has to have undeniable proof that they have killed before he can act and he always kills them in the same way, knife to the heart.

>>52704720

I think he's CN leaning CG towards the end of the series, followed by plunging back into the black of CN in In The Pale Moonlight.

>>52718119
The fact that it's a character from a Japanese hentai game proves nothing, but i'm not sure you were trying to make a point, but it does reinforce my assessment of the character as chaotic evil.

>>52718357
>>52718467
>only killing other killers
fair point, I can see that as neutral

>>52718467
He kills and disposes of them however he feels is appropriate in the books, if I remember correctly he buries the child molesting and murdering priest/preacher alive where he put his own victims. He's oddly not really picky about how he kills and disposes in the books.

>>52701067
chaotic neutral is pretty much what most people would play by default, it's rational self interest with the degree of sociopathy that naturally comes from being detached because you're playing a game instead of being literally there. If you want to play it well, it would be like a less degenerate patrick bateman tailoured to whatever setting it's in.

But also alignments are stupid and should be used to describe a character after the fact, not be something you try to play to in lieu of actual character motivations and personality traits.

>>52704306
>>52709194
Dexter is chaotic evil forced to act lawful neutral

>>52718774
>like a less degenerate patrick bateman
Yeah, like a whole lot less.

>>52718805
You are how you act. If he was truly chaotic evil then he wouldn't be acting lawful neutral.

>>52718828
Not a whole lot, just remove the dismemberment fetish and pointlessly murdering innocents for fun pretty much. Being generally kinky (but not actually to the point of being evil) fits CN fine, unless you're a puritan and think recreational sex is inherently evil.

>>52718855
>He's basically a sadistic serial killer and rapist without all the sadism, killing and rape

Or in other words, it's chaotic evil without the evil?

>>52718887
Yeah, how was that not apparent from the term Chaotic Neutral?

>>52718902
But then couldn't you rather find a chaotic neutral character to describe it?

>>52718981
They are difficult to portray, not a lot of examples exist, and at the moment I can't think of one.

>>52718587
So how would you define the difference between CE and CN?

>>52719216
A lack of any outstanding good or evil qualities.
CN is Robin Hood without going after King John to give to the poor/church, without giving a 3rd back to the dude they're stealing from and keeping it for themselves and people they like.
CN is Patrick Bateman while keeping all murderous tendencies only towards evil individuals.

>>52719216
I would define it on a characters action, rand is willing to and does rape according to that other anon, that makes him chaotic evil. if he were focused on freedom for freedom's sake or simply being a pure agent of change, using actions that would not be considered outright evil or good, for wherever he goes. That would be chaotic neutral. I've never played the games and most likely never will, so perhaps he has a range of choices or possible portrayals, but that doesn't change that being willing to rape someone makes a person evil to the fucking core.

>>52719371
>being willing to rape someone makes a person evil to the fucking core.
Depends on who you're raping and on the circumstances

>>52719381
No, it really doesn't.

>>52719442
t. LG
Hypothetically, if your entire party gets tortured to death by a witch for example, rape is an adequate response.
It's not the same as going around fucking random villagers.

>>52719458
No it's it would be repulsive to a lawful good character, no matter what happened to him, at most he'd just kill the witch, or more likely capture her and imprison her, as punishment for her crimes like a true lawful good character.

The only way what you said could be true is if you're using an archaic definition for that word and I highly doubt you even know it.

>>52719557
>reading comprehension
I wasn't talking about what LG would do.

>>52719564
You were calling me lawful good? Hardly, more like, lawful neutral, perhaps even evil, as I follow my own code, and care little for society's. Rape would be repulsive to all except for Evil characters, ESPECIALLY Chaotic Neutral characters because they cherish freedom and self determination far too much to take it away from someone else. So, no, in that circumstance the CN character would simply murder the witch, and walk away because they usually have few attachments in the world.

>>52719646
The way you treat rape as some sort of absolute evil of all evils sounds LG to me.
>Rape would be repulsive to all except for Evil
LN and TN probably wouldn't really care about it happening to others but wouldn't do it themselves. They certainly wouldn't be repulsed by it on a moral level though.
>they cherish freedom and self determination far too much to take it away from someone else
A lot of CN characters only care about their own freedom. What happens to others doesn't matter to them. A character who goes around killing and raping people constantly would probably be CE, but a CN character wouldn't necessarily consider rape to be "abhorrent" or even "wrong".
The only difference between CN and CE is that CE is always an asshole and often for no reason.

>>52712655
If following a personal code of ethics makes you lawful, then NG and CG wouldn't exist.

>>52719646
I'm sure you can contrive some scenarios in which a generally good (or neutral) character would feel justified in raping someone.
Think about how easy it is to do for murder, robbery, etc.

>>52701067
DO WHAT YA WANT CAUSE A PIRATE IS FREE

could a CN character ever be in a military (or any kind of heavily structured) organization?

>>52719695
Rape is an absolute evil, and i only treat it that way because I've been through it and the aftermath, but that doesn't really matter to the discussion at hand, at the very least any True neutral and above character would find rape unacceptable, chaotic neutral is shaky because a lot of people don't understand how to portray someone who is an agent of change and never does the same thing twice, moving from place to place and action to action on their whims.

>>52719743
Thats not what I implied or meant to imply, and isn't true the difference is mainly in how strictly you adhere to your code, and how far you're willing to deviate from it, besides ethics are different from a personal code of conduct.
>>52719769
No, I can't because if a character commits rape they are evil, now I will admit that depends largely on ones definition of rape, the one I go by is forcing someone whether through extortion, coercion, or violence to have sex with you against their will.

>>52719852
What if a succubus cast a futadom dick conjuring spell and sapped your magic powers via your boipussy, with the only way to get them back being to return the rapefavor?

>>52719852
>forcing someone whether through extortion, coercion, or violence to have sex with you against their will.
Actual, "evil" rape would only include the violence part in my opinion
Pressuring someone into sex isn't rape. Overpowering them physically and putting your dick inside them is rape.

>>52719812
If it suited their own purposes, sure.

>>52719969
So it's fine to pressure/blackmail someone into sex against their will?

>>52720033
>So it's fine to pressure/blackmail someone into sex against their will?
I didn't say it was fine, I said it wasn't rape.

>>52719960
That would be reversible with a simple remove curse spell cast by a sufficiently powerful Cleric or paladin.
>>52719969
>>52720056
Then you would be wrong both literally legally and by my metric.

>>52719969
>It's okay your honor, that twelve year old totally wanted it; I didn't physically force her to do anything she didn't agree to. Well okay I may or may not have had her puppy locked in my trunk but if you put on these +5 goggles of pedantry you'll see that...

>>52720083
There are no clerics in this setting, only phallus-based magic.
Without which, I may add, you will be unable to save the kingdom.

>>52720083
>legally
Because rape totally isn't politicized nowadays, right?
>by my metric
Then we disagree.
Blackmailing a girl into blowing you isn't rape.

>>52720098
I assumed we weren't talking about kids.
If the person isn't able to reason like an adult then it's not ok.

>>52720173
It's okay your honor, that cleaning lady totally wanted it; I didn't physically force her to do anything she didn't agree to. Well okay I may or may not have had her son locked in my trunk but if you put on these +5 goggles of pedantry you'll see that...

Don't follow any rules, be good to good people, be bad to bad people. How hard is that?

>>52720214
That's not rape, it's kidnapping and blackmail
Still a dick move

>>52720124
Changing the rules is bullshit.
>>52720143
It doesn't matter that it is, I hate the stupidly added consent laws in many states because their focus isn't narrow enough because it essentially tells women they don't have to be responsible for their actions when they choose to get inebriated.

As for us disagreeing we do, but you are wrong in your opinion, the facts of life and law in many countries disagree with you, and support my argument. So, if you choose to keep being a moron and remain as, I don't really care.

>>52720245
It's still fucking rape, it just happens to include Kidnapping and Blackmail.

>>52720264
remain deluded*

>>52720264
Where did I say in the rules that the we were playing PF and the problem could be conveniently solved by any mid level cleric you happen to have lying around?

I think even a paladin could justify raping a succubus if it meant saving the kingdom.

>>52720264
>you are wrong in your opinion
Prove it. The law isn't an objective measure of truth, it's a compromise made to allow society to run correctly.
>the facts of life
What?
>law
Because of the aforementioned politicized aspect. The definition of rape changes according to the country and legal system.
>I don't really care
You're obviously emotionally involved in this

We're arguing semantics, I'm just saying that rape means violent coercion with penetration of one or several orifices (of course diddling kids isn't ok even if they "agreed" to it though).
What you're describing as rape encompasses blackmail, sexual assault/harassment, and other stuff.
That results in guys being incarcerated because some cunt "withdrew her consent" or some other bullshit.

>>52720340
Keep fighting le SJW menace in a world where your opinions are the only right ones and the law/society/common sense are all wrong.
Crossboarders go and stay go.

>>52720330
You never did and I wasn't thinking PF but you changed the fucking rules, so I'm done with your little ERP.
>>52720340
The law doesn't have to objective, because wierdly all of society save for a few depraved places consider rape to be repulsive and punish it severely. When almost all of the world says you are wrong, are you not wrong?

Have you ever been raped? know how it feels psychologically emotionally physically? No? it is not fun or easy to recover from, and it is painful and even when you do recover you still struggle with it every single day thats what I mean by the facts of life.

Irrelevant.

Could one not argue that violence at its core is simply manipulation of a person fear used to control them against their will? yes or no?

>>52720369
Damn you're mad as fuck. It's just my opinion, I never said you had to agree with it if you don't want to.
But yeah I think the law (and therefore society) are wrong on this one. And common sense seems to be on my side, then again it's semantics

>>52701067
you dont

>>52720421
>The law doesn't have to be objective
If it's subjective, then it can't be used as a basis for allegedly objective definitions.
>When almost all the world says you are wrong
I never said rape shouldn't be punished, I simply said your definition of rape wasn't the right one.
>are you not wrong
Not necessarily, I'm stubborn.

>Have you ever been raped? [...]
>Irrelevant.
That's contradictory. You're appealing to my emotions by telling me about the psychological implications of rape but then you say your feelings about this are irrelevant to the conversation.

>violence at its core is
Depends, are you talking about physical violence? Then no. And rape is about physical violence.

>>52720451
I bet if you were a chick you'd spout shit like "well it can't possibly count as rape if he had an erection" and try to pass that off as "common sense" too.

>>52720421
So you admit that there are (deep magical realm) scenarios where a good character could commit rape justifiably in a nonevil fashion?

Why does everything have to be so black and white with you people...

>>52720532
>it can't possibly count as rape if he had an erection
What are you talking about?
It's possible to get an erection only by physical stimulation. You're not making any sense.
Rape is putting it in when he/she says no, that's it.

File: 1254365824906.jpg (15KB, 270x226px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 270x226px

>>52718467
>His step father Harry noticed the he was killing small animals and doing other cereal killer stuff at a young age and gave him a set of rules on how, when, and who he could kill so the he could live a relatively normal life.

>>52720551
I see your deductive reasoning abilities haven't fully developed, I'll just leave it be...

>>52720508
The objective definition is in the fucking dictionary, and is codified in many countries systems of laws, maybe that's not objective, but honestly it doesn't need to be.

The answer was yes, you are.

I never said you did, I was providing a reason you are wrong.

No, I was saying that your third point was irrelevant, not my last point, the spacing should have told you that.

No, It really doesn't depend, I asked you a yes or no question, Can one define violence as manipulating another persons into doing something against their will though fear?

>>52720532
In a completely fictional setting designed for erotic fantasy, I could see it, but this long since stopped being about its relevance to tabletop and became a real world morality discussion, so yes I agree with you on that.

>>52720622
>no rebuttal
Alright then. Nice talking to you anon.

>>52701067
conan, james bond, jack sparrow, han solo, achilles

>>52718981
There aren't many. They aren't compelling characters. Dagny Taggart

>>52720652
>conan
not sure

>james bond, jack sparrow, han solo
All chaotic good.

>achilles
The mythological figure? cus lmao if so

>>52720630
Greentext exists for a reason, anon.

>it doesn't need to be
It does when you start to talk about absolutes.

>yes, you are
No, because I don't let other people pressure me into doing or thinking things just because they have authority. Otherwise I might get raped for example.

>your third point
The legal thing? Yeah, then I misunderstood. I'm still right though, appealing to emotion isn't an argument.

>It really doesn't depend, I asked you a yes or no question
Don't try to pull the old "your answer doesn't fit within my own subjective framework designed specifically to make you appear irrational, so I'll disregard it and tell you you didn't answer my question" on me.

>>52720744
And if I don't like green-texting?

Where is written that someone or thing has to be absolute to be correct?

False equivalence there, I believe.

Then you misunderstood on both points I was not appealing to your emotions I was using both psychology and my personal experience to give you an example of life itself proving you wrong.

Thats not what I was pulling or trying to pull answer the fucking question.
Violence can be defined as the manipulation of fear by one to control another, yes or no?

>>52721047
>And if I don't like green-texting?
Then you're making this more difficult for no other reason than because your feelings are hurt. It's pretty retarded.

>someone or thing has to be absolute to be correct
When you're arguing that something is correct or true, you rely upon objective observations that your interlocutor cannot deny or object to. That's pretty basic. If your argument is based on a subjective interpretation, then it can't stand on its own, and therefore it's worthless.

>False equivalence
The second part yes, because it was a joke. Not the first part, I stand by what I said.

>I was using both psychology
You weren't. You were asking me if I had been raped, you told me it wasn't fun, that it was painful, etc. None of this is "psychology", it's your own personal experience that I didn't ask for and that has nothing to do with the conversation. That whole part of your post can be summed up as "rape is not enjoyable".

>answer the fucking question
I answered it. You just didn't like my answer.
>yes or no
No. You're only defining one type of violence.

File: IMG_0488.jpg (111KB, 550x550px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 550x550px

>>52701067

>>52721319
>nihilists cast as evil
I object to this typification

>>52701067
Regular person with slightly poor impulse control.

File: 1487293355802742.png (241KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

241KB, 375x523px

>>52701067

>>52721164
It's really not difficult at all, and my feelings aren't hurt at all, I'm just laughing at your idiocy

That's not how arguing or rather debate works, most including this one are over subjective ideas, possibly using objective things to support them, but those are not necessary to form an argument, or to put forth an idea, nihilism, existentialism, and all of the philosophy of the world is ultimately subjective and yet people argue or debate over them all the time, so your conclusion and the information you put forth there is entirely false.

Good for you then not "letting" someone have power over you.

Actually I was, although it had an emotional tint to it it is a fact of science that rape is an extraordinarily difficult experience to go through and some never fully recover from the experience.

No you didn't, I was defining violence, that means all violence, and all violence can be defined as controlling another person through fear, what you use to get that fear to present itself and thus use it to coerce or control another persons actions, is immaterial.

Blackmail/Extortion is violence if your goal is getting the person to have sex with you or getting them to commit a crime, it's also technically kidnapping in the first case.

Coercing a person by making them fear you, and then using that fear to get that person to fuck you is rape.

Violence is not strictly limited to physical violence alone, not in this world.

>>52720451
>common sense seems to be on my side

Well said sir *tips fedora*

>>52720508
>a archaic : to seize and take away by force

I don't see where it says physical violence in this definition, in fact I don't see any definition that stipulates physical violence as a necessary component.

Bare in mind that I am not the person you are arguing with and you both seem like morons who are arguing semantics.

>>52722522
It's not really semantics he thinks if you blackmail someone to get them to have sex with you that it's not rape? Indirectly blackmail is taking something by force from the victim, so it's rape, no matter what way you spin it.

>>52722385
Yes it is more difficult, because it makes posts less readable. But whatever, keep being a special snowflake.
>laughing at your idiocy
Seems like your feelings are hurt, actually. This is a personal issue to you, so it makes sense.

>That's not how arguing or rather debate works
A debate is opposing arguments being put forward. For an argument to support an idea, it needs to be grounded in reality to a certain extent. Otherwise, you're just talking about muh feels.
>those are not necessary to form an argument
Yes, they are. If your argument is not reliant on measurable data, then it's invalid.
>nihilism, existentialism
>all of the philosophy of the world is ultimately subjective
Fucking hell, this is babby's first philosophical insight. "Muh absolute skepticism, nothing can be known", do you really think this is a valuable insight at all?
This has nothing to do with my conclusion because we're not talking about philosophy.

>Good for you
Yeah, everyone gets to choose what they're affected by, ideologically. What are you implying?

>it it is a fact of science that rape is an extraordinarily difficult experience to go through
Cool, now point me to where in my previous posts I stated the opposite.

>I was defining violence, that means all violence
Well, then your definition was shit, whatever.
>all violence can be defined as controlling another person through fear
If I shoot you in the skull I'm not controlling you through fear, yet I'm being pretty violent.

>Blackmail/Extortion is violence
Sure, just not physical.
>Coercing a person to make them fear you
Not physical violence, not even strictly illegal
>using that fear to get that person to fuck you
They'll technically be "consenting", even though legally speaking it probably counts as some form of abuse. Either way, not rape.

>Violence is not strictly limited to physical violence
Never stated the opposite

>>52722422
Edit: thanks for the gold!

>>52722522
>archaic
Archaic means that definition is not in use anymore.

According to the first result on Google:
>rape
>unlawful sexual activity and usually sexual intercourse carried out forcibly or under threat of injury against the will usually of a female or with a person who is beneath a certain age or incapable of valid consent because of mental illness, mental deficiency, intoxication, unconciousness, or deception
Now depending on what you consider to be deception, that doesn't include blackmail.
>blackmail
>the use of threats or the manipulation of someone's feelings to force them to do something.
Deceit is defined as a misrepresentation or concealment of the truth, which doesn't happen when you blackmail someone. The victim knows what's happening, they're just involved emotionally.

The other guy will probably say this whole post is mental gymnastics, now.

>>52722646
So for reference, if some one was coerced into having sex because say, there son was held at gun point, would that be rape or would you argue that the mother technically had the option to let her son die and therefore it wasn't rape?

>>52722772
>the mother technically had the option to let her son die
Isn't that the truth, even if it's morally wrong?
I don't understand how you can argue against the fact that she had a choice. The choice is easy to make given her position, but she wasn't, strictly speaking, physically forced into it.

>>52722789
So the act of violence has to be directed at the rape victim directly? Also while we're on the topic, if a bank robber brings a bomb into a bank and threatens to blow up the place unless they give him there money that isn't technically robbery because they all clearly had the option to be blown instead right?

>>52722842
*blown up
Fuck, though given the topic it kind of works

>>52722571
No it's not, use the tomorrow theme and you wouldn't have any issues seeing what I'm writing

My argument is grounded in reality, I'm telling you that getting someone to fuck you whether you achieve that by blackmail, or through beating the shit out of somebody it's still fucking rape by the legal definition in the entirety of the western world.

No it's not my first philosophical insight, that point was made because we're discussing whether an action is rape, legally and morally(this is where philosophy comes in) it is, in fact, what I say it is.


>>52722646
Yeah I will, because you are doing some impressive gymnastics to say that using blackmail to get sex isn't rape. You proved me right, your own evidence there proves my argument correct. You see that part in both definitions that says or is derived from the word force, that means if you used blackmail defined as forcing some to do something through threats or manipulation is called (guess the word!) RAPE!
>>52722789
There's literally no arguing with your idiocy, is there? so for you if it's a technicality, morally speaking, (which wouldn't fly in any court any fucking where) you'd do it, because it's not rape?

>>52704306
I want to fuck Chiana so hard.

>>52722842
>the act of violence has to be directed at the rape victim directly
If the rapist isn't being violent towards the person then it's not rape. I think that was established already.

>robbery
>the felonious taking of the property of another from his or her person or in his or her immediate presence, against his or her will, by violence or intimidation.
That's self-explanatory I guess.

>>52722870
I use the tomorrow theme. But I have to look back at my own posts every time you reply. I understand you're just acting like a child because you don't like what I'm telling you, but it's still pretty annoying.

>by the legal definition
And as I said previously, I don't trust justice when it comes to defining rape because of how the issue is overblown and instrumentalized by various parties.

>not my first philosophical insight
Sure sounds like it, because "absolute skepticism" is pretty much taken as granted by everyone. It's never a valuable addition to any conversation.
>morally(this is where philosophy comes in)
But it's not where you bring up skepticism.

>you are doing some impressive gymnastics
Thanks but no, I'm just saying rape = physically violent sexual acts performed against the victim's will. If the victim technically had a say in the matter then it's not rape.
>if you used blackmail defined as forcing some to do something through threats or manipulation
But that isn't the strict definition of blackmail. So I guess I didn't prove you right and that once again you're justifying your own opinions through a subjective framework.

>There's literally no arguing with your idiocy
If you want to stop I'll happily give you the last word, anon.
>if it's a technicality [...] you'd do it
I wouldn't say I'd do it. I'm just saying it's not rape.

The following assumption is baseless, but I'm guessing you're a girl who got pressured by a guy to have sex with him, correct? I don't understand why you'd be so angry about all this otherwise.

>>52723034
Okay, new scenario. If I'm beating the shit out if a girl and I tell her that I will only stop if she has sex with me, that's not rape because she had the option to just keep getting her ass kicked right? If anything that's just aggravated assault.

>>52723034
No, I was a nine year old bay raped by a 6 years older cousin, but nice try.

>>52723088
>new scenario
This is pretty pointless. Are you waiting for me to contradict myself or something? It'll surely happen eventually.

Your scenario is tricky because I'd say you'd have to take specific physical factors into account, such as, was the victim still restrained when she got coerced into having sex, did she truly have the option to leave or was she incapacitated/unable to move freely, etc.
According to what I consider to be rape it's a grey area, but if I had to choose I'd say it's rape. Depends on the exact circumstances though, but direct physical violence immediately followed by sex should count.

>>52723128
Alright, I just wanted to know, I'm not "trying" anything. Are you/have you talked about this to a professional?

>>52723189
Not in a good long while, because the doctors assessment was, after it resurfaced when I was 17, that I was dealing with it very well and i needed no further therapy, I was raped in one of the ways you claim isn't rape and despite feminist bullshit because they're the only fucking ones sensationalizing this shit and lobbying for all the retarded law changes, it was still rape.

>>52719812
They wouldn't stick with it unless it heavily benefited them down the line. They would prefer more freelance organizations like mercenary groups rather than state militaries.

>>52723283
I see.
>one of the ways you claim isn't rape
I would probably consider your specific situation to be rape regardless of the method of coercion, since you were a minor having not even gone through puberty yet, and that the aggressor was presumably aware of his actions and their implications.

>>52723189
>Are you waiting for me to contradict myself

Don't have to, you already have multiple times but your most recept example

>rape = physically violent sexual acts performed against the victim's will. If the victim technically had a say in the matter then it's not rape.
The sexual acts were not physically violent, the threat of physical violence was give if sex was not consented.

Look all I'm trying to say is a that 1) you have no particular definition of rape so arguing about the definition with you it's meaning less because you simple change the definition to suit your argument. In truth I feel you actually do have a clear cut definition of rape but due to political beliefs you've allowed cognitive dissonance to take over. 2) if this type of coercion is considered rape then why aren't others?

>>52723350
I'm going to assume you think it'd be statutory? and I don't know how aware he was of his actions or implications, and I never bothered to have him charged, as I was seventeen when I remembered it, and decided to let the anger and shit go for my own well being, the only fucking thing is if I ever find out he touched his kids like that, he will never be found.

>>52723411
>multiple times
What are the other times?

>>rape = physically violent sexual acts
Well yeah that definitely makes my argument fall apart, but I hadn't realized I had worded it that way.
I'm obviously backpedalling but regardless, the more correct definition would be "sexual acts initiated by physical violence". The sexual acts themselves don't have to be violent as long as the method used to initiate them was. I think this is consistent with my other posts.
>the threat of physical violence was give if sex was not consented
Yes, although you told me that in that particular situation the aggressor had beaten the victim prior to requesting sex.

>you have no particular definition of rape
What I've said above seems to fall in line with the other definitions I've given so far.
>you simple change the definition to suit your argument
I don't think I have. I've always said that rape had to be initiated by direct physical violence, right?
>due to political beliefs
Like what? I'm not even particularly conservative for 4chan standards.

>if this type of coercion is considered rape then why aren't others
Because I specifically stated that the situation you gave me was difficult to assess. It's hard to encompass all possible situations with a strict definition, and the scenario you presented could go either way according to the way I've defined rape.
This might not be completely rigorous (although justice itself hardly ever is for cases like those) but it sounds rational enough to me.

>>52721380

Anyone who breaks into my place and throws a ferret at me while I'm naked is very far removed from any definition of good in my book.

>>52720672
Jack Sparrow is mostly just interested in helping himself.
Much more Neutral than Good.

>>52723520
>statutory
Well yes, wasn't it? You said you were nine.
>I don't know how aware he was of his actions or implications
When you're fifteen I'd say you know what you're doing, at least when it comes to stuff like that. So yeah, probably.

>>52723589
Pretty sure that's not technically statuatory rape, being that both of us were minors, could be, don't really care now.

>>52723648
Yeah it doesn't really matter, in that case the age difference was pretty high anyway.
I don't know how justice behaves when both parties are the same age, though.

>>52723308
To be a mercenary, you first have to learn the craft at an "official" military force, anon

>>52723851
Well, you have a reason why they would go with a state military for a few years.

>>52720652
>>52720672
>James Bond
>Chaotic
Fuck no.

>>52723571
And they peed on his rug.

>>52718805
No. His behavior is Lawful Neutral, therefore he's Lawful Neutral. Thoughts which exist solely in his own head have no bearing on the morality of his actions.

File: Meditation.jpg (132KB, 868x860px) Image search: [Google]

132KB, 868x860px

>>52701067
My current Chaotic Neutral Psion

>My qualm is not with the ethical idea of good, but with your mistaking "celestial" for good and "infernal" for evil. While it is generally true that the end result of celestial prominence is preferable to infernal prominence, too far down either path goes well beyond what a mortal entity could sanely call ethics. Similarly, a farmer prefers rain to oppressive heat, but cannot thrive without both the sun and the rain. I do not reject ethical good, I reject the dogmatic will of the celestial as a definition of ethical good. Unfortunately, the nature of ethics resists most absolutes: is murder necessarily evil when the afterlife is a measurable truth for example? The will of both infernal and celestial bureaucracies suppress such questions in favor of their petty cosmic politics, using mortals as pawns. The only near-absolute that I've found to be true and built into the fabric of this plane is that, in general, mortals should be free.

File: mint_julep.jpg (398KB, 789x580px) Image search: [Google]

398KB, 789x580px

Watching people argue about AD&D alignments is funny.

t. an OD&D player

>>52728767
*tips*

>>52729164
>ethics go deeper than good and evil
>fucking fedora

>>52730899
Technically everybody, at least everybody here, is a fedora, so just ignore it.

>>52720143
>Blackmailing a girl into blowing you isn't rape.
Just like pulling a knife on somebody and politely asking them for all of their money isn't robbery. You see, there were no violence, and you didn't take the purse from another person's body - it was given willfully.

>>52732362
Read the whole thread.

>>52732387
Being coerced into reading this whole thread is rape.
Or at least assault.

>>52732387
Ok. Why should your definition of rape exclude coercion, but your definiton of robbery include a type of it?
This isn't the case in the legislation in my country, for example, so you can't claim your definition to be objective and axiomatic.

>>52728809

I demand to know the alignment of Mint Julep.

>>52732683
Are we going to have that discussion again? I thought I had explained it previously
I said violent coercion leading to sex = rape since other cases (excluding statutory) have the victim be technically willing
Robbing always includes threat of violence on the other hand, but not necessarily the initiation of physical violence.

My definition might not be axiomatic but I still think it's better than the one used commonly in the justice system since it leaves little room for nuance.
Which doesn't mean that blackmail leading to sex should be unpunished either

File: image.png (87KB, 274x278px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 274x278px

>How do you play chaotic neutral correctly?
>Thread proceeds to become a shitstorm of discussing about defenition of rape

Im not even surprised anymore.

>>52719371
>being willing to rape someone makes a person evil to the fucking core.
Murder is fine, though.

>>52732823
Didn't you say that the threatened party still has a choice in the matter, thus it agrees to the demand willingly? It's not like a person cannot chose to take the punishment in any kind of coercion to try and wear out / deny the criminal.

I think that punishing one kind of the same crime (of forced sex) more than other kinds only because of the means employed to commit it is unjust: no matter the means, the harm done in course of the action (of forced sex) is the same. If there was any additional harm, it is usually separated and prosecuted as an another offence.
And if the punishment is the same, then the difference is fairly superficial and pointless.

>>52733003
>A murder is the unlawful killing of another human without justification or valid excuse, especially the unlawful killing of another human being with malice aforethought.
Murder is evil.

>>52733052
Yes, but we're talking about definitions here aren't we? Rape nowadays encompasses any kind of sexual assault or even some forms of sexual behavior that would've been seen as acceptable only thirty years ago.

>punishing one kind of the same crime (of forced sex)
I get what you mean but I disagree. Someone who blackmails a girl into blowing him because otherwise he'll spread compromising photos of her (for example) isn't in the same situation as a guy who beats up a girl, ties her up in his basement and penetrates her against her will.
>the harm done in course of the action (of forced sex) is the same
That is if you assume that all kinds of forced sex are equal in terms of associated trauma, which they aren't.
Most drunken sex that could be considered rape today aren't even particularly traumatic, if at all, for any of the parties involved.
>if the punishment is the same
It shouldn't be.

>>52733003
It can be argued that rape is akin to torture and forces the victim to deal with its repercussions the rest of their life, much like if someone didn't kill his enemies, but turned them paralysed or otherwise crippled. It's just pointless cruelty which doesn't stop your enemy, only makes it harder to antagonize you. And if your goal is the latter, imprisonment will suffice. So your only justification for it is "eye for an eye".

>>52701067

Chaotic neutral is a less self serving Neutral Evil. All alighments have a lateral shift.

Neutral Good's sister is Lawful Neutral. Chaotic good can slide into True Neutral quite easily. Neutral can become Lawful Evil just as easily, as Chaotic Neutral can become Neutral Evil.

>>52733145
I understand how CN can become NE since they're pretty close (although CE and CN are even closer) but how do you justify the other equivalences?

File: SPARCstation20.gif (1020KB, 500x373px) Image search: [Google]

1020KB, 500x373px

>>52733122

As someone who has been raped, I'd much rather be raped than killed.

Yes, it fundamentally changed me as a person; and I am no longer the person who came before that incident. But I am glad to exist, even through the hardship. I honestly like myself now more than the me that came before. I am thankful that I was raped, though it took me years to come to this conclusion.

>>52733180
>I am thankful that I was raped
Was /r9k/ right all along?

>>52733149

NG becomes LN because they eventually will come to the conclusion that Law is the ultimate good as desired by the people.

CG becomes TN through apathy and depression after seeing the harm they have caused by trying to be "good" without thinking it through. Eventually, if pushed enough, they can become jaded enough to slide into LE.

File: Clockwork Archer.gif (2MB, 314x209px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 314x209px

>>52733190

I never forgave the ones who did it, and I would enjoy watching them flayed before me. Do not mistake my thanks for gratitude and love.

I am on the CN-NE dichotomy.

>>52733111
>Rape nowadays encompasses any kind of sexual assault or even some forms of sexual behavior that would've been seen as acceptable only thirty years ago.

In some countries, and what they do is wrong. They have to punish the use of drugs such as rophenol as means of rape, and it's hard to exclude alcohol from them. That said, their definition of coercion is too broad and skewed.

>Someone who blackmails a girl into blowing him because otherwise he'll spread compromising photos of her (for example) isn't in the same situation as a guy who beats up a girl, ties her up in his basement and penetrates her against her will.

The blackmailer only makes less "additional" crimes to achieve his goal of forced sex. He could just as easily demand her to subject herself to ties as well as to being used sexually, then beat her, then have sex - and the violent guy could just cow his victim in with threats.

>That is if you assume that all kinds of forced sex are equal in terms of associated trauma, which they aren't.
Why do you think so? Is it because some victims are more resilient than others? Obviously, I do not consider all drunken sex as forced.

I feel that you are basically incentivising some means of coercion over the others, while giving little consideration to the act itself. But shouldn't the goal be to prevent as much criminal acts as possible, rather than to make them more palatable?

CN characters spontaneously fail to exist when they hit CN alignment. Why? Because their personality is a mix of two conflicting alignments.
On the Law/Chaos axis...
Law favors code and rules, Chaos favors change, and Neutral favors stagnation.
On the Good/Evil axis...
Good favors altruism, Evil favors selfishness, and Neutral favors stagnation.

So a CN would be someone who favors both change and stagnation; it doesn't work. Anyone listed as a CN alignment could be better fit with a different alignment.

A true CN would be a sloth, either unable or unwilling to act outside of some very specific circumstances. Their alignment choice paralyzes them from actually taking or committing to any actions.

>>52733180
Well, I reckon that most of tortured people are glad they're not dead.
I just was arguing that it's hardly justifiable.

>>52733296
>Neutral favors stagnation.
No, neutral just doesn't care.

File: image.png (375KB, 500x387px) Image search: [Google]

375KB, 500x387px

>>52733180
Its good you have overcome your demons and manage to move forward. I hope rest of your life is less painful then your past.

>>52733304
Precisely. And what's the best way to not care? by being stagnant and lazy. It's easy to not care when there isn't any changes going on that affect your life.

>>52733307

Thanks.

>>52733296

How does it feel, being so wrong about everything? I've always wanted to know.

>>52733310
No, that's just the best way if you're a faggot with no imagination. Not caring in the alignment sense means to be out for yourself only; you're not swayed by altruism (good) because you don't care about other people, and you're not prone to complete solipsism either (evil) because you're not an asshole.
You just go on with your life and do what you want. Being chaotic on top of that means that you might be less accepting of structure, authority and stagnant situations.

>>52733296
Neutral is "I won't get out of my way to help people but I also won't get out of my way to be a dick."

>>52733333
So the CN is an utter pragmatist?

File: Followers of Set.png (164KB, 449x318px) Image search: [Google]

164KB, 449x318px

>>52733335
I doubt that CE sadists go out of their way to be dicks, they are pretty much on their way

>>52733281
>what they do is wrong
Not really. To me, two people fucking while drunk isn't rape. A girl who has sex with a guy then withdraws her consent wasn't raped. A girl who was groped on the subway wasn't raped.
>their definition of coercion is too broad and skewed
Yes, which is why I think only direct violence should count save for very few exceptions.

>The blackmailer only makes less "additional" crimes to achieve his goal of forced sex
The entire process is different.
The blackmailer (especially in that particular case) gave the victim a clear choice.
The actual rapist didn't.

>Why do you think so?
Because being sequestrated, degraded and abused isn't the same as reluctantly fucking a guy because he might leak nudes of you.
It's not necessarily about resilience.

>you are basically incentivising some means of coercion over the others
Yes, because some are more radical, traumatic and difficult to defend against.
>little consideration to the act itself
The act depends upon the means of coercion.
>shouldn't the goal be to prevent
Yes, but calling everything rape doesn't help

Christ, this thread took an awful turn since last night.

Having sex with people without their consent is bad mmmkay

>>52733350
No, CE is an utter pragmatist.
CN is a CE who voluntarily tries not to be too much of an asshole. That's literally the only difference between the two.
CE knows that if he rapes that farmer girl it'll feel really good, so he does it. CN knows that also, but he also thinks "that's a dick move, I probably shouldn't", and doesn't do it.
>>52733335
Generally speaking, Neutral don't really behave like assholes unless they have an incentive to do so. They're basically the gadsden snake, "don't step on me and we're cool"

File: 1434099639723.png (53KB, 625x626px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 625x626px

>>52733374

>blackmail payment in sex isn't rape

Rapist detected.

>>52733417
>"If you don't suck my dick I'll send those pics of you being a slut to your dad"
That's not rape.
>he doesn't agree with me so he's a rapist
wew lad

>>52733436

>if you don't have sex with me, bad things will happen to you

No, that's cohesion. That's rape. You're a rapist, potential or otherwise.

>>52733473
>That's rape.
No, it's literally stating a fact. The other person is left with a choice.
>You're a rapist, potential or otherwise
Calm down cunt, I'm not an asshole so I wouldn't coerce a girl into having sex with me regardless of the method. And even outside of the moral aspect, sex isn't fun when one of the involved parties isn't enjoying it.

Seriously though can we stop arguing the semantics of rape and just acknowledge that having sex with people who don't want you to have sex with them is kind of a dick move and not really justifiable under any circumstances and therefore, for the purposes of discussing alignments, pretty clearly Evil? And so are violence and blackmail and drugs and anything else you might use to get it. It's a moot point.

>>52733473

*Coercion

Thanks, phone.

>>52733499
Yes, this is true.
>violence and blackmail
As standalone acts these aren't clearly evil depending on what the end goal is.

>>52733492

You're still a potential rapist. A lot of rapists don't realise they are rapists. "Oh, she agreed, so it's fine, even though I'm too autistic to realise she only agreed because she was afraid that worse things would happen to her if she didn't."

That's you. That's what you are.

>>52733524
>A lot of rapists don't realise they are rapists
Fucking hell, where do you come from? This is typical college brainwashing bullshit. Stop trying to guilt trip people into thinking they're "potential" rapists.
Everyone is a potential everything. Doesn't mean they'll do it. I'm a potential murderer, should I be incarcerated?

>she agreed, so it's fine
Greentext the exact part of my post where I said, or even implied, what you wrote.
You can't, because I didn't say it was fine, I said it wasn't rape because the victim had a choice. It still falls under blackmail, taking advantage of a person's weakness, etc.

Saying something isn't rape doesn't imply that I'm justifying the moral validity of the act itself.

>>52733520
Alright, yes, poor wording. You could've included the drugs in there as well. But in this case the goal is entirely selfish and at the expense of others and that's pretty much a basic definition of Evil in D&D.

>>52733553

This isn't brainwashing. This is common fucking sense. The whole, "she changed her mind after," is often because of this exact phenomenon: fear of what might happen if she says no. It's not always, sometimes the woman is a fucking cunt. But, more often than not, it's because of fear of being beaten and killed.

>aying something isn't rape doesn't imply that I'm justifying the moral validity of the act itself

It kinda is.

>>52733596
Print out your post and shove it up your ass.

>fear of saying no, what comes after
>xDD I don't want to sleep with this guy but if I say no he still might try to do it, I'm so confuseeed xDD

Justifying neurotic behavior is not common sense. It's retarded and you should feel bad for doing so.

Also that tattooed chick who you try to impress with your online moral crusade will never sleep with you.

>>52733596
>This isn't brainwashing

>brainwashing
>pressurize (someone) into adopting radically different beliefs by using systematic and often forcible means.
By continually guilt tripping young males into thinking they might be rapists by extending the use of the word to situations that don't warrant it, you are, effectively, brainwashing people.

>common fucking sense
That people who have never raped anyone and find the act abhorrent are "potential rapists" and should be treated as such?
You didn't address my point that everyone is a potential everything, because you realize that it's a stupid fucking argument because it's so obviously true that it needn't be mentioned (just like the guy earlier in the thread who was talking about absolute skepticim and was trying to pass it off as a valuable philosophical insight).
You are, literally, policing thought. Potentiality can never be used as a basis for judgment.

>fear of what might happen if she says no
This is unbelievably retarded and one of the slippiest slopes I've ever heard about.
So, just because a woman "feared" something might happen to her if she refused to have sex (implying that nothing actually happened), she is now a rape victim?
You're on the same level as the cunts who call a guy a rapist because he's "creepy". If he didn't do anything to you, then he's not a rapist.
If he asked you to have sex with him without pressuring you into anything, and you consented, then he's not a rapist and the only thing you're a victim of is your own stupidity.

>It kinda is
I'll point out that you didn't bother to greentext the part of my post where I legitimized rape.

And no, you're wrong. Saying something isn't murder doesn't justify murder. If I kill someone in self-defense, and say it isn't murder, that doesn't mean I'm saying that I'm completely innocent. It just means I'm denying having murdered anyone.

Now fuck off.

>>52733374
"-what they do is wrong
-Not really. "
You misunderstood. I meant the judicial system guys, not the tipsy sex couple.

Well, it degenerated into a full shitfest, so it wouldn't be right to continue, but I see where we disagree.

>>52733741
Oh, sure, then you might be right depending on the judicial system you're talking about specifically. It's true that places like the middle east are too lenient on the aggressors

>>52733553
>I'm a potential murderer, should I be incarcerated?
Well, you know, if you were here arguing that there's nothing morally wrong with dismembering small animals for fun and it should be seen as quite distinct from sadism and you don't know why it's even on a list of warning signs for serial killers because you're not a serial killer...

>>52733693
>>52733704

Hi, samefag.

You are why I carry a gun.

>>52733693
>They can't refuse... because of the "implication"

>>52733776
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-yUafzOXHPE
>This thread

File: 1470064310050.png (22KB, 329x131px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 329x131px

>>52733766
Your entire post made no sense.
Dismembering animals for fun is textbook sadism. What the fuck is your point?
>>52733774
>everyone who doesn't agree with me is a samefag
Good job not addressing any of the points I made because you're regurgitating shit you have absolutely no understanding of.
You should use your gun to end your life.

CN characters are often only truly loyal to themselves. They aren't lolrandumb, but if a deal or contract they agreed to no longer suits them, they have no qualms with walking away.

That's not to say they will stab their friends in the back to get a leg up, but they do have a complex utilitarian approach to choosing who their friends are.

They will side with an evil king if it benefits them the most, but if a faction of rebels introduces a better deal, or an easier path to walk, a CN character would take it.

>>52733808

Dennis is you.

See >>52733788

>>52733774
Carrying a gun must be a real burden for you, especially as a "male". Statistically you have the highest potential of shooting yourself in the head! Which in your worldview means a morning roll check, that when failed causes an automatic reflex of putting your gun to the head and pulling the trigger.

And even if you pass that check there is the morning school shooting roll check and the rape check. Woe is you.

Also not a samefag. Your stupidity is large enough to be hated by multiple people.

>>52733858

I'm not the only one who sees the rapist in you, you know. I can see now I was foolish to assume you shits don't travel in packs.

>>52733776
>>52733788
>taking an extreme example in order to misrepresent my argument and generalize it
That's called a strawman, don't do that.
If a girl is alone with a guy during a party and she doesn't really want to have sex with him but still does, it's the guy's fault?
You're directly implying that women are not responsible for their actions and that men should be held as accountable for it. How progressive of you.
Basically, to you, every situation that leads a girl to "withdraw her consent" can be equated to being alone on a boat in the middle of the ocean with a horny guy.
I try to avoid telling people to go back to tumblr, but that might actually be where you truly belong.
>>52733840
Again, nice job responding do the post I made earlier.
So far you called me a samefag and posted a clip of a funny scene from a movie. What's next, smug anime girls?

>>52733876
>not addressing any of the points he made in his post
Did it fly over your head because it was coated in irony, or do you just want to keep posting YouTube videos to avoid justifying your claims?

>>52733889
>That's called a strawman, don't do that.
>Proceeds to literally set forth the same argument in the very next sentence

>>52733876
>there is more than one nu-male and man hating neurotic cat lady in this world
>this is news

>the opinion of those people should matter to me

Ayy lmao.

>>52733920
That's not true, but you seem to genuinely lack reading comprehension so do you want me to rephrase it?

You first made the claim that withdraw of consent was, in fact, justifiable when I had previously claimed the opposite.
In order to "prove" me wrong, you posted a clip from a funny movie where a guy talks about getting girls drunk on his boat then taking advantage of the fact that they don't have anywhere to go and fucking them.

You then proceeded to imply that I shared the same views as the character from that movie, and that by saying consent withdrawal wasn't justifiable, I was implicitly endorsing getting girls drunk on a boat and fucking them while they have nowhere to run to.
This is called a strawman argument. I can explain why specifically if you still don't understand.

I answered to your claim by pointing out the fact that, if you were seriously implying that people who didn't believe in the withdrawal of consent supported Dennis' views, then that would also imply that all cases that lead to withdrawal of consent can be considered as equivalent to the specific situation shown during that movie's scene.

This, as I pointed out, included situations that were much less serious in nature and therefore, for which the threat of coercive force could be extremely low or downright nonexistent.

So, either you're contradicting yourself, or you're implying that women are not responsible for their actions.

>>52733994
Jesus fucking Christ are you literally autistic?

>>52734021
I should've known
Confronted with your own incoherence/stupidity, the best way to save face is always to call the other guy autistic, this is arguing on the internet 101

>>52733904

Why reiterate exactly what has been said a million times before in the thread?

>>52733994
>>52734041

No, dude, you are literally autistic.

>>52734254
Alright, so you can't prove me wrong and your only "argument" is calling me autistic.

You know, when I'm wrong about something and get BTFO by someone who knows more than me or is more intelligent than me, at least I admit that I was wrong and it helps me grow and build on more knowledge.

When your views are systematically proven to be retarded and that the only thing you do is respond with ad-hominems and irrational sophistry, maybe you should reconsider the way you see things.

File: 1442188630555.jpg (20KB, 277x296px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 277x296px

>>52734279

Again, you are why I carry a gun.

Polite sage

>>52734305
>more autism
>no attempt to even argue
I'm genuinely wondering how you can be so brainwashed that you're literally unable to see things from another angle.
It's genuinely impressive.
Or do you want the last word that badly? If so that's fine.

>>52733524
Oh god, one of you idiots.

"Everyone is a potential rapist because they have a penis" fucktard.

Rape is so broadly defined by your defitions LOOKING at someone may be rape, right?

>>52734305
>you are why I carry a gun

As if the weight you carry isn't enough to make anyone near you recoil in revulsion.

>>52734333

Nice strawman. And no. But coercion is rape.

>>52734328

No, my point has been made a million times. One of yous was the first one to switch to ad hominem.

Also, since you have autism, literally ANY evidence or point made will just be disregarded.

Have a nice day. I know I will. Because I don't have autism.

>>52734279
I'm just not going to bother to condescend to your level and clarify semantics and technicalities ad nauseam for a wilfully dense autist when I already deftly cut through all his bullshit and summed him up perfectly by comparing him to a sociopathic sitcom character, you know?

Ironically, though, I think your main misunderstanding is caused by your failure to see "the implication" in your own arguments.

File: b17c61c292a50a6ee4586abce5c94887.jpg (39KB, 468x527px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 468x527px

>>52701067

>>52734351
>my point has been made a million times
I don't think it has. Maybe you could point me to the posts in question.
>ad hominem
I think you were the first one to call me a literal rapist because I didn't agree with you. Not that it matters.
>since you have autism
I don't. Actually got tested for it because I was wondering.
>ANY evidence
No evidence was provided.
>point made
YouTube videos aren't points.
>will just be disregarded
If you actually use arguments to refute my claims in a way that makes sense, then I'll admit that I was wrong.

>>52733553
>should I be incarcerated?
Based on your posts, probably.
But posting asinine idiocy as justification for criminal behavior isn't a crime.
As much as it indicates the likelihood that, if given the opportunity, you would commit any number of violations simply because you believed they were fine, that is not sufficient to incarcerate you for the safety of others.
Regrettably, the law does not usually step in until it is too late.

>>52734351
No, it isn't. It's coercion and sexual assault. She's still agreeing, and she's still willfully participating.

Rape is when you are not willfully participating. Coercion = you get a choice. You can choose not to, and suffer the consequences. But you have that choice.

Rape=no choice. You don't have any options, you just take it and hope they don't murder you as well. you hope you don't get pregnant. you hope that you can cope with the memories. but you are going to get raped. You can't say "fuck you, I'm not doing it and you can't make me". coercion isn't rape unless it's a gun at your head or a knife at your throat, and then it isn't coercion at all, it's rape.

I think you can guess why I know the fucking difference, you ignorant fucking piece of shit.

>>52734360
I'm not even trying to be condescending. As I said before, I'm actually, actively trying to figure out why you're behaving like this. You were proven wrong, but don't want to accept it.

>clarify semantics and technicalities
Clarifying semantics has already been done; as for technicalities, maybe you should, because you seem to have a tendency to generalize things when you shouldn't.
>wilfully dense
Not really, I just like being coherent.
>I already deftly cut through all his bullshit
Please direct me to the posts in question.
Where did you prove me wrong?
>summed him up
A strawman, yes. You don't sum up an argument by misrepresenting it, that doesn't add anything to the conversation.
>comparing him to a sociopathic sitcom character
Which is basically on the same level as reductio ad Hitlerum. It's exactly the same thing, and again, it's counterproductive.

> your main misunderstanding is caused by your failure to see "the implication" in your own arguments.
What do my arguments imply?

>>52734394
>Actually got tested for it because I was wondering.
lol, perfect

>>52734427
I was joking
Though given the time I spent on this thread alone I'm probably on the spectrum
>>52734408
>Based on your posts, probably
Why?
>it indicates the likelihood
How do 4chan posts indicate anything?
>given the opportunity, you would commit any number of violations
I explicitly stated earlier that I would not. Please read my posts.
>you believed they were fine
So you didn't read what I wrote. Point out any post in which I stated that rape, sexual assault of any kind, blackmail or violent coercion were fine.
>Regrettably
Would you want the state to incarcerate "potential" criminals before they actually committed a crime?

>>52701067
You are out for yourself and only for yourself. Follow your whims, helping some and hindering others as you see fit. As long as you oppose order.

>>52703773
"Be it rain or your blood, the sand will take its due"

>>52734425
>You were proven wrong, but don't want to accept it.
Well, that's the thing m8

>>52734755
Yeah but why? When you argue with someone you're expected to be at least somewhat rational

>>52734764
No, that's not the thing.

The thing is you actually didn't prove me wrong at all. Your argument can still be summed up in its entirety as
>If the girl said no, then the answer obviously is no.
>But the thing is, she's not going to say no. >She would never say no, because of the "implication".

>>52734814
What you just said was just a repeat of the strawman argument I pointed out in >>52733994.

Now, ignoring the part where I said that coercing someone into sex was not cool regardless of the method of coercion:
>>If the girl said no, then the answer obviously is no
I agree with that part.
>>the thing is, she's not going to say no.
The issue is with this.

From what I've gathered from your posts, every time a girl "withdraws" her consent after having had sex, that means (to you) that she must've been in a situation similar to the boat scenario (which is objectively not true).

In the boat scenario, if the girl is drunk and the guy isn't, that can already be considered sexual assault even without the "implication" part.
Furthermore, if she refuses to have sex with the guy, and he still initiates it, it's rape.
And if she agrees to have sex with the guy, it's still sexual assault given her drunkenness.
Now if she weren't drunk, and she said yes, then either she was genuinely agreeing to it (which obviously isn't rape), or she was "scared" of the implications of saying no, and was therefore "pressured" into sex.

Whether or not the latter is true partly depends on specific factors (the guy's behavior towards her, the environment she's in at that time, the way the conversation goes, the witnesses).
But either way, if she says yes and they have sex, and she then withdraws her consent, then that means that she felt like she had no other choice at the time than to say yes because she feared that something bad would happen otherwise.
The problem with this reasoning is that it justifies any kind of "consent withdrawal".

And thus, not only does it makes men completely vulnerable to the whims of a cunt, it also implies that women are incapable of being responsible for their own actions.
Because if a woman withdrawing her consent means the guy was at fault, then you're blaming the man for a woman's decision, implying she shouldn't be responsible for that decision.

>>52734814
>>52734940
Therefore, this creates a problem.
If a woman isn't responsible for her own actions, then the concept of consent withdrawal should be seen as legitimate.

However, if a woman is considered to be responsible for her decisions, then consent withdrawal goes against that by giving the woman a way to incriminate a potentially innocent man regardless of the specific situation they were in at the time when the sex took place.

The argument for consent withdrawal is "I had to say yes, because otherwise something bad would've happened".
However, how do you assess whether the situation the woman was in was genuinely threatening, or if it wasn't?
And furthermore, how do you determine the intentions of the guy if the woman said yes? There's no way to tell if he would've raped her if she had said no.

Consent withdrawal is therefore unfair and flawed.
What really happened might only be determined by specific circumstances and so every case should be solved individually. The notion of consent withdrawal as some sot of Joker card any woman could use after any kind of sexual encounter is ridiculous.

>>52734940
>>52735033
Yeah, after reading all that I have to conclude that it was a waste of time and I'm still right. You're saying that a yes is a yes, regardless of the "implication". That is exactly what "the implication" relies on. She says the magic word, so you're free to go.

I don't care to get into why we would actually need to worry about women "withdrawing consent" for no reason or why we got into the technicalities of what actually constitutes rape in the first place. If you argue that consent cannot be withdrawn then you are arguing that "the implication" is a legitimate means of obtaining consent.

>>52735169
Well, whatever then, I won't be able to convince you of anything. But genuinely believing that consent withdrawal is a legitimate thing is absolutely ridiculous to me, maybe because I'm not American and that shit hasn't arrived here yet.

>You're saying that a yes is a yes
Until proven otherwise, yeah.
>regardless of the "implication"
If the implication is strong enough to constitute tangible proof then no. Otherwise yes.
>She says the magic word, so you're free to go
As I said, the circumstances are important.
If you're with a guy in at a party, that you're both sober, and he asks you to come upstairs with him, and you say yes, then no matter how "threatened" you claimed you felt, it wasn't raped and you were consenting.
If you're alone with a guy on his boat in the middle of nowhere and he asks you if you want to have sex, things become much more ambiguous.

>I don't care to get into why we would actually need to worry about women "withdrawing consent" for no reason
Maybe because it's happening in America.
>what actually constitutes rape
I was discussing that with another anon, I think.
>If you argue that consent cannot be withdrawn then you are arguing that "the implication" is a legitimate means of obtaining consent
If the alternative is allowing women to withdraw consent whenever they want, then yes.
It's imperfect but I'd rather have that.

>>52735169
>>52735242
Oh by the way I'd like to clarify.

I'm strictly talking about the legality of things here.

Never have I implied that using the method you describe as "the implication" was morally acceptable.
It's a shitty thing to do, but given what the alternative is, it should be legal (but highly scrutinized in court).

>>52730899
>>ethics go deeper than good and evil
You wrote a lot more than that.

>>52734495
>Why?
Because you don't believe all rape is rape and therefore you might rape, believing that it is not rape.

>How do 4chan posts indicate anything?
They show your professed belief that not all rape is rape and therefore you might rape, believing that it is not rape.

>I explicitly stated earlier that I would not.
You would rape, but only because you don't believe all rape is rape you therefore might rape, believing that it is not rape.

>Point out any post in which I stated that rape, sexual assault of any kind, blackmail or violent coercion were fine.
You have stated that some forms of rape are not rape and therefore just sex, and sex is fine, so you might rape, believing that it is not rape.
One is left to speculate on what forms of coercion you do not believe are coercion.

>Would you want the state to incarcerate "potential" criminals before they actually committed a crime?
Ideally, it is better to arrest people for attempted murder, rather than murder.
So in that vein, yes.
But beyond that, it is problematic in the extreme.

Considering your inability to differentiate between sex and rape, it is probably best that you do not have sex.
I do not suspect that this is actually an issue.
After all, even the most severe forms of coercion can only do so much.

>>52716306
MUH COOOOOOOOOOOOOOODE *rattles tits* MUH DEXTER!!! MUH COOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOODE *rattles tits even harder* MUH COOOOOOOOOOOOOODE

https://i.warosu.org/tg/?task=search&ghost=&search_text=dexter+code

That shitbrick of a character has been waved around by apologists for the shitty writing for years.

>>52735630
>you might rape, believing that it is not rape.
Even according to your definition of rape I already said I wouldn't do it. I don't know what else you want me to say.
You don't have to slap the word rape on everything for people to realize it's a dick move to pressure a girl into fucking you.

You're repeating the same thing over and over. I got it, you think I'm a rapist. I don't really give a shit.

>therefore just sex, and sex is fine
Not quite.
I said it was just sex, but initiated using immoral methods (when said methods aren't downright illegal). Therefore I still think it's not appropriate.
>what forms of coercion you do not believe are coercion
Irrelevant, because I wouldn't fuck a girl who doesn't seem like she's into it/receptive to what I'm suggesting. I might be autistic but I can still read social cues. Not to mention I'm pretty timid usually so I'm not the type to aggressively initiate sex.

>beyond that, it is problematic
What are you trying to say?

>it is probably best that you do not have sex
I have and will have sex again in the future, sorry about that.
>I do not suspect that this is actually an issue
Oh, now it's the "I'll attempt to discredit what you're saying by claiming you're undesirable to the opposite sex". Real classy.

Your aggressiveness and bitterness give it away that you don't belong here. You're pretty much the tumblr stereotype that people love to make fun of. I didn't think people like you actually existed.

Just because you're perceive a person or situation as intimidating doesn't mean you are being coerced. If some fuck huge lumberjack lookin' dude asks you for a piece of gum, and give it to him thinking he'll get mad and hit you if he doesn't, then you don't get to call the police later and cry that you were forced to give him your gum.

If some guy on a boat asks you if you wanna have sex, and you say yes because you THINK he'll rape you if you say no doesn't mean you were raped.

>>52735771
That's true. I was fixated on semantics but what you're saying is pretty basic common sense.

>>52735717
TV show is different from Books, and if you could actually read you would have noticed I was referring largely to the fucking books, so shut the fuck up.

File: 1486962050841.png (273KB, 900x750px) Image search: [Google]

273KB, 900x750px

the only alignment chart that matters

>>52735771
Someone actually gets it.

>>52735894
I'm the guy you were arguing with earlier, that was not the way you presented your point, and in that
case, I happen to agree with you, but some of your other ideas are flat out wrong, or flawed ways to present your idea, just so you know.

>>52735728
>Your aggressiveness and bitterness give it away that you don't belong here.
Oh, you're new here, why didn't you say so!
Let me explain it to you:
If you post stupid shit, we will point out you posted stupid shit.
If you defend your stupid shit, we point out that you're a stupid shit.
If you post something we think is worth discussing, we discuss it.
Enjoy your time here!
Party on.

>>52736637
>that extreme passive-aggressiveness
Yep it's tumblr, no mistake.

>>52736666
I wouldn't know Satan, I've never been there.

>>52736826
>uses words like "problematic"
>thinks 4chan is some cool counter-culture collective and actually says "we" when talking about it
>gets angry as fuck for no reason
Stop lying.

Well, it was a good alignment thread while it lasted.

>>52736826
Also, if you knew anything about the rules, he got Quads. By 4chan societal hierarchy, he is correct. Get with the times Newfag.

Is Cao Cao chaotic or lawful?

drunken frat boy

>>52737404
Well he's not named Lao Lao

>>52733524
>this post
Holy shit people this retarded are actually real

>>52737404
He followed the law, respected order, and believed in himself and his beliefs, he showed respect for his enemies and wanted an end to the civil war. I know none of these things are exclusive to lawful characters, but in the context of his life I think it represents a lawful one.

That cuck, Lu Bu, was chaotic.

>>52736890
>triggered by the words "problematic" and "we"
>projects anger and lies where there is none
I'm not saying you learned this behavior from contamination by scary "other websites", I'm just saying you're a dumbass.

>>52737292
/tg/ > other boards > checkin' dubs
Not that you're really wrong.

>>52737965
Sadly, yes there are.

>>52701067
What about Chaotic evil, how do you make sure it doesn't come off as too edgy?

>>52721380
>they were actual nihilists

>>52740023
>>52740023
Be a team player. Respect the boss, and what the boss dictates. Respect those that the boss brings in. Work towards the stated goal of the party. But in everything else be a soccer hooligan.

The world is full of bullies and victims. Don't be a victim.

File: maxresdefault.jpg (28KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 1280x720px

>>52701067

Garret from the first Thief game would be a good example of Chaotic Neutral done right

>>52740023
Think like a goblin.

>>52740023
Have simple but legitimate reasons for doing things. You should have plans but not grand, overarching designs (too often). Look at all the CE monsters/races. How many of them are considered edgy and which ones for what reasons.

>>52704720
No, he's Lawful Evil pretending to be Chaotic Neural.

>>52740056
Weren't they?

>>52745621
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7AEMiz6rcxc

>Bunch of crybabies

To be Good, you have to be significantly better than average. If you throw a coin to a beggar once in a while, EVEN IF IT IS OUT OF COMPASSION AND THE KINDNESS OF YOUR HEART, it isn't enough to make you Good. To be Good requires willingness to sacrifice for others.

To be Evil requires willingness to hurt others for your own ends. Again, not to just be kind of a dick sometimes, but to be a real scumbag.

Anyone who's kind of "an okay person," who tries to do right by others but sometimes can be a jerk, is neutral on the Good/Evil axis. That's most people.

Now, to be Lawful, you have to have some kind of code you hold to strictly, and it will probably (but not necessarily) be explicit. Someone who makes his or her living as a doctor and holds to the Hippocratic Oath in terms of doing no harm even when not on the job would be Lawful. So would a monk or other religious person who lives according to a series of rules, and genuinely does his or her best to follow them consistently (as opposed to a Christian who says, "oh, I know I shouldn't, but I use the Lord's name in vain and lie way more often than I'd care to admit," for example).

Chaotic would be the opposite end. Impulsive and opposed to having his or her choices restricted, to a degree that other people may find annoying.

A CN character, then, is one who is generally alright, neither mind-blowingly kind and benevolent nor a total piece of shit, and also is really uncomfortable feeling tied down or being subject to rules.

Got a friend who makes a living selling bootleg DVDs, but generally for half price, and only to people who know what they're getting? Or maybe they volunteer at a soup kitchen then after that, head to a bar to hustle some poor bastards out of their spending money. That's chaotic neutral.

>>52745974
>you have to be significantly better than average to be good
>anybody who follows a rule is lawful
Try harder, man.

>>52745993
>you have to be significantly better than average to be good
You do.
>anybody who follows a rule is lawful
Anybody whose life is centered around following a series of rules.

>>52746024
Like I said, try harder.

File: cff.png (65KB, 625x626px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 625x626px

>>52745993
>>52746046

>>52704415
>fuckin' wussy ass chainmail
>all scratchy and shit
>should have let my woman make me wear a shirt
>I miss my two handed sword

>>52746074
Have some fucking standards is all I'm saying.

>>52746134
You're not making any sense. How is "it takes effort to be Good; it isn't the default" not having standards?

>>52740178
Exactly.

File: C8NiXbsUIAE886W.jpg (83KB, 1024x682px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 1024x682px

>using alignments

>>52728809
its good to own land

>>52701067
Could there be such a thing as "morality points?"
would it be possible to quantify how good or evil a person is by how many morality points they have?

>>52712780
So... wouldn't it be accurate to describe him as Lawful Chaotic Neutral?

Multidimensional characters do not and should not necessarily adhere to the traditional 9.

What if morality were a number?

>>52746268
But you do, HERMAN

File: psycho-pass-poster.jpg (45KB, 354x500px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 354x500px

>>52746263
>>52746279

>>52746279
Assumming only you cared about your number, would you subject your actions to a morality scale? Would you let impartial observers judge the moral validity of your actions?

>>52746316
Caption- Syndicate Progenitors Product Union
Headline - What if a computer could determine whether you were, objectively, a good person based not on your actions, but your behavior and all the relevant circumstances surrounding your behavior?

>>52746354
>a good person based not on your *actions, but you're behavior
>a good person based not on your *intentions, but you're behavior

File: db172a6e1f5e3c6827f0b514f3000460.jpg (44KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 600x600px

>>52746354
No one but god can judge me!

>>52746354
Of course, you'd have to calculate for unobserved behavior. Hell, you'd have to sign a sheet just to sit alone in a room with a girl.

>>52746316
Catholicism, now in Japanese flavor!

What if you kept track of your OWN morality meter and volunteered to allow it to be subjected to peer review from people you respected?

>>52746268
>So... wouldn't it be accurate to describe him as Lawful Chaotic Neutral?
His actions are predominantly Lawful.
So, not really.

>Multidimensional characters do not and should not necessarily adhere to the traditional 9.
This is, as always, completely true.

>>52745974
>neutral on the Good/Evil axis. That's most people.
This.
Most real people are always going to strongly gravitate towards True Neutral.
As such, any well written, multidimensional character will as well.
Alignments have always worked best, when they've worked at all, as vectors rather than locations.
You *approach* Good or Evil.
You *approach* Lawful or Chaotic.
You *are* you, an individual not bound by alignment.

Unless you are Judge Dredd, in which case you are The Law.

>>52746268
Technically you're right, Dexter is too multi-dimensional to consistently adhere to any of the D&D traditional 9 alignments, but if you take the base concept of Dexter before all of the character development he would be Lawful Neutral.

>>52701261
>hanging children
>anything other than evil

File: come-out-and-play-horror-movie-children-kids.jpg (653KB, 1200x800px) Image search: [Google]

653KB, 1200x800px

>>52748013
Not really disagreeing here, but I'm gonna go ahead and guess that you haven't spent a lot of time around children.

>>52701067
Violently destroy anyone doing too much good or too much evil